Advertisement

Pink Stinks - at Least for Men

How Minimal Gender Cues Affect the Evaluation of Smartphones
  • Astrid CarolusEmail author
  • Catharina Schmidt
  • Ricardo Muench
  • Lena Mayer
  • Florian Schneider
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10902)

Abstract

Based on the paradigm of “computers are social actors” (CASA) and the idea of media equation, this study aims to examine whether smartphones elicit social responses originally exclusive for human-human interaction. Referring to the stereotype of gender-specific colors, participants (n = 108) of a laboratory experiment interacted with a phone presented either in a blue (male) or a pink (female) sleeve to solve five social dilemmas with the phone always arguing for one of two options given. Afterwards, participants rated the femininity and the masculinity of the phone as well as its competence and trustworthiness. Furthermore, the participants’ conformity with the choice recommendations the phone made was analyzed.

Consistent with gender stereotypes, participants ascribed significantly more masculine attributes to the blue sleeved smartphone and more female attributes to the pink phone. The blue phone was perceived as more competent and participants followed its advice significantly more often compared to the pink sleeved smartphone. Results on how trustworthiness was perceived were only found for male participants who perceived the blue phone to be more trustworthy. In sum, the study reveals both the CASA paradigm and the psychological perspective on users to be fruitful approaches for future research. Moreover, the results also reveal practical implications regarding the importance of gender sensitive development of digital devices.

Keywords

CASA Smartphones Gender stereotypes Media equation 

References

  1. Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A.: Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 18, 317–334 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, R.A., Jones, K.: Sexual identity, physical attractiveness and seating position as determinants of influence in discussion groups. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 6, 357–375 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Akert, R.M.: Social Psychology, 6th edn. Pearson Studium, München (2008)Google Scholar
  4. Ashmore, R.D., Del Boca, F.K.: Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles 5, 219–248 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodenhausen, G.V., Macrae, C.N.: Stereotype activation and inhibition. Stereotype Activation Inhib. Adv. Soc. Cogn. 11, 1–52 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. Buss, D.: Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, 5th edn. Routledge, New York, NY (2015)Google Scholar
  7. Carolus, A., Schmidt, C., Muench, R., Schneider, F.: Impertinent mobiles- Effects of polite and impolite feedback on the evaluation of smartphones. Manuscript submitted for publication (2018)Google Scholar
  8. Carolus, A., Schmidt, C., Schneider, F., Mayr, J., Muench, R.: Are people polite to smartphones? How evaluations of smartphones depend on who is asking. In: Proceedings from the HCI International 2018. Las Vegas: Springer (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Cunningham, S.J., Macrae, C.N.: The color of gender stereotyping. Br. J. Psychol. 102, 598–614 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M., Gerard, H.B.: A Study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51, 629–636 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diekman, A.B., Eagly, A.H.: Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past, present, and future. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26(10), 1171–1188 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eagly, A.H., Mladinic, A.: Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15(4), 543–558 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., Diekman, A.B.: Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal. In: Eckes, T., Trautner, H.M. (eds.) The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, pp. 123–174. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  14. Eckes, T.: Features of men, features of women: assessing stereotypic beliefs about gender subtypes. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33(1), 107–123 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (1975)Google Scholar
  16. Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J., Glick, P., Xu, J.: A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 6, 878–902 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fogg, B.J., Tseng, H.: The elements of computer credibility. In: CHI Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 80–87 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. Gal, D., Wilkie, J.: Real men don’t eat quiche: regulation of gender-expressive choices by men. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 1, 291–301 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goddard, A., Meân, L.: Language & Gender, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  20. Hagen, E.: The evolutionary psychology (2002). http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/ep.htm
  21. Jacklin, C.N., Maccoby, E.E.: Social behavior at thirty-three months in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Dev. 49, 557–569 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, D., Gardner, J., Wiles, J.: Experience as a moderator of the media equation: the impact of flattery and praise. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 61, 237–258 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, D., Gardner, J.: The media equation and team formation: further evidence for experience as a moderator. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 65(2), 111–124 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.007cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelman, H.: Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. J. Conflict Resolut. 2(1), 51–60 (1958).  https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiesler, C.A., Kiesler, S.B.: Conformity. Addison Wesley Publishing Company (1969)Google Scholar
  26. Kim, K.J.: Can smartphones be specialists? Effects of specialization in mobile advertising. Telematics Inform. 31(4), 640–647 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, E.: Gender stereotyping of computers: resource depletion or reduced attention? J. Commun. 58, 301–320 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, E., Nass, C., Brave, S.: Can computer-generated speech have gender? an experimental test of gender stereotype. Paper presented at the Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) Conference, pp. 289–290 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. Lockheed, M.E.: Sex and social influence: a meta-analysis guided by theory. In: Berger, J., Zelditch, Jr. M., (eds.), Status, Rewards, and Influence: How Expectations Organize Behavior, pp. 406–429. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1985)Google Scholar
  30. McCroskey, J.C., Weiner, A.N., Hamilton, P.R.: The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Hum. Commun. Res. 1, 42–52 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nass, C., Fogg, B.J., Moon, Y.: Can computers be teammates? Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 45, 669–678 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nass, C., Brave, S.: Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-computer Relationship. MIT press, Cambridge, MA (2005)Google Scholar
  33. Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56, 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Green, N.: Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 864–876 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B.J., Reeves, B., Dryer, D.C.: Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 43, 223–239 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: CHI 1994, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, pp. 72–78 (1994)Google Scholar
  37. Pearson, J.C.: The role of gender in source credibility. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY (1982)Google Scholar
  38. Pew Research Center: Mobile Fact Sheet (2018). http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
  39. Picariello, M.L., Greenberg, D.N., Pillemer, D.B.: Children’s sex-related stereotyping of colors. Child Dev. 61, 1453–1460 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., Malcuit, G., Cosette, L.: Pink or blue: environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex Roles 22, 359–367 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prentice, D.A., Carranza, E.: Sustaining Cultural Beliefs in the Face of Their Violation: The Case of Gender Stereotypes. In: Schaller, M., Crandall, C.S. (eds.) The Psychological Foundations of Culture, pp. 259–280. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  42. Propp, K.M.: An experimental examination of biological sex as a status cue in decision-making groups and its influence on information use. Small Group Res. 26, 451–474 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  44. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.: An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W.G., Worchel, S. (eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33–37. Brooks/Cole, Monterey (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid Carolus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Catharina Schmidt
    • 1
  • Ricardo Muench
    • 1
  • Lena Mayer
    • 1
  • Florian Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Julius-Maximilians University WuerzburgWuerzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations