CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Do Men Have No Need for “Feminist” Artificial Intelligence? Agentic and Gendered Voice Assistants in the Light of Basic Psychological Needs

Open access
Moradbakhti, Laura, Schreibelmayr, Simon, Mara, Martina·2022·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855091PMC PMC9239329
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is supposed to perform tasks autonomously, make competent decisions, and interact socially with people. From a psychological perspective, AI can thus be expected to impact users’ three Basic Psychological Needs (BPNs), namely (i) autonomy, (ii) competence, and (iii) relatedness to others. While research highlights the fulfillment of these needs as central to human motivation and well-being, their role in the acceptance of AI applications has hitherto received little consideration. Addressing this research gap, our study examined the influence of BPN Satisfaction on Intention to Use (ITU) an AI assistant for personal banking. In a 2×2 factorial online experiment, 282 participants (154 males, 126 females, two non-binary participants) watched a video of an AI finance coach with a female or male synthetic voice that exhibited either high or low agency (i.e., capacity for self-control). In combination, these factors resulted either in AI assistants conforming to traditional gender stereotypes (e.g., low-agency female) or in non-conforming conditions (e.g., high-agency female). Although the experimental manipulations had no significant influence on participants’ relatedness and competence satisfaction, a strong effect on autonomy satisfaction was found. As further analyses revealed, this effect was attributable only to male participants, who felt their autonomy need significantly more satisfied by the low-agency female assistant, consistent with stereotypical images of women, than by the high-agency female assistant. A significant indirect effects model showed that the greater autonomy satisfaction that men, unlike women, experienced from the low-agency female assistant led to higher ITU. The findings are discussed in terms of their practical relevance and the risk of reproducing traditional gender stereotypes through technology design.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855091

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No proper Basic Psychological Need scale adapted to the technology context has to date been rigorously developed and validated.

    “Since no proper BPN scale that is adapted to the technology context has to date been rigorously developed and validated, studies have used individually adapted versions of existing BPN scales (e.g., B. Chen et al., 2015;Moradbakhti et al., 2022;Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012), thereby impeding comparability of results across studies.”

    From Development and Validation of a Basic Psychological Needs Scale for Technology Use (2024) · cites this paper as Moradbakhti et al., 2022

    The Materials and Methods section says the authors adapted an existing BPN scale for their technology study. In Discussion > Limitations and Outlook, they report poor reliability for some adapted items and call for a context-specific scale, but they do not establish the broader claim that no rigorously developed and validated technology-specific BPN scale existed. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 111

  1. Abel M. Kuz S. Patel H. J. Petruck H. Schlick C. M. Pellicano A.. (2020). Gender effects in observation of robotic and humanoid actions. Front. Psychol. 11: 797. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00797, PMID: 32425860 PMC7205409 · DOI
  2. Abele A. E. Cuddy A. J. Judd C. M. Yzerbyt V. Y. (2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 1063– 1065. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.574 · DOI
  3. Alqassim S. Ganesh M. Khoja S. Zaidi M. Aloul F. Sagahyroon A. (2012). “Sleep apnea monitoring using mobile phones.” in 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom). December 13, 2012; IEEE, 443– 446.
  4. Amatucci F. M. Crawley D. C. (2011). Financial self-efficacy among women entrepreneurs. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 3, 23– 37. doi: 10.1108/17566261111114962 · DOI
  5. André Q. Carmon Z. Wertenbroch K. Crum A. Frank D. Goldstein W.. (2018). Consumer choice and autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Cust. Needs Solut. 5, 28– 37. doi: 10.1007/s40547-017-0085-8 · DOI
  6. Appel M. Izydorczyk D. Weber S. Mara M. Lischetzke T. (2020). The uncanny of mind in a machine: humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 102, 274– 286. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.031 · DOI
  7. Appel M. Kronberger N. Aronson J. (2011). Stereotype threat impairs ability building: effects on test preparation among women in science and technology. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 904– 913. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.835 · DOI
  8. Aytulun G. Sunai A. B. (2020). Parasocial interaction with media characters. Psikiyatr. Guncel Yaklasimlar. 12, 494– 506. doi: 10.18863/pgy.688117 · DOI
  9. Bakan D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
  10. Balaguer I. González L. Fabra P. Castillo I. Mercé J. Duda J. L. (2012). Coaches' interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well-and ill-being of young soccer players: A longitudinal analysis. J. Sports Sci. 30, 1619– 1629. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.731517, PMID: 23062028 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Blakemore J. E. O. (2003). Children's beliefs about violating gender norms: boys shouldn't look like girls, and girls shouldn't act like boys. Sex Roles 48, 411– 419. doi: 10.1023/A:1023574427720 · DOI
  12. Boseovski J. J. Hughes C. Miller S. E. (2016). Expertise in unexpected places: children’s acceptance of information from gender counter-stereotypical experts. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 141, 161– 176. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.002, PMID: 26433196 · DOI
  13. Boytos A. S. Costabile K. A. Austin A. B. Short K. A. (2020). Feminism, gender, and agentic and communal themes in narrative identity. Sex Roles 83, 54– 63. doi: 10.1007/s11199-019-01089-x · DOI
  14. Bradley M. M. Lang P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 25, 49– 59. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9, PMID: 7962581 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Brady D. Isaacs K. Reeves M. Burroway R. Reynolds M. (2011). Sector, size, stability, and scandal: explaining the presence of female executives in fortune 500 firms. Gend. Manag. An International Journal 26, 84– 105. doi: 10.1108/17542411111109327 · DOI
  16. Brahnam S. De Angeli A. (2012). Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interact. Comput. 24, 139– 153. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2012.05.001 · DOI
  17. Brems C. Johnson M. E. (1990). Reexamination of the Bem sex-role inventory: the interpersonal BSRI. J. Pers. Assess. 55, 484– 498. doi: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674086 · DOI
  18. Brink K. A. Wellman H. M. (2020). Robot teachers for children? Young children trust robots depending on their perceived accuracy and agency. Dev. Psychol. 56, 1268– 1277. doi: 10.1037/dev0000884, PMID: 32463269 · DOI
  19. Broverman I. K. Vogel S. R. Broverman D. M. Clarkson F. E. Rosenkrantz P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal 1. J. Soc. Issues 28, 59– 78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00018.x · DOI
  20. Bukowski W. M. DeLay D. (2020). Studying the same-gender preference as a defining feature of cultural contexts. Front. Psychol. 11: 1863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01863, PMID: 32922330 PMC7456919 · DOI
  21. Burke R. J. Vinnicombe S. Ogden S. M. McTavish D. McKean L. (2006). Clearing the way for gender balance in the management of the UK financial services industry. Women Manag. Rev. 21, 40– 53. doi: 10.1108/09649420610643402 · DOI
  22. Byrne D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
  23. Cambre J. Kulkarni C. (2019). “One voice fits all? Social implications and research challenges of designing voices for smart devices.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–19.
  24. Carli L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 941– 951. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.941 · DOI
  25. Carr P. B. Steele C. M. (2010). Stereotype threat affects financial decision making. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1411– 1416. doi: 10.1177/0956797610384146, PMID: 20855899 · DOI
  26. Chang R. C. S. Lu H. P. Yang P. (2018). Stereotypes or golden rules? Exploring likable voice traits of social robots as active aging companions for tech-savvy baby boomers in Taiwan. Comput. Hum. Behav. 84, 194– 210. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.025 · DOI
  27. Crowell C. R. Deska J. C. Villano M. Zenk J. Roddy J. T. Jr. (2019). Anthropomorphism of robots: study of appearance and agency. JMIR Hum. Factors 6: e12629. doi: 10.2196/12629, PMID: 31094323 PMC6533876 · DOI
  28. Curry A. C. Rieser V. (2018). “# MeToo Alexa: how conversational systems respond to sexual harassment.” in Proceedings of the Second Acl Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing. 7–14.
  29. Dasgupta N. Asgari S. (2004). Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 642– 658. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003 · DOI
  30. Davenport T. Kalakota R. (2019). The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc. J. 6, 94– 98. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94, PMID: 31363513 PMC6616181 · DOI · Paper page
  31. De Vreede T. Raghavan M. De Vreede G. J. (2021). “Design foundations for AI assisted decision making: A self determination theory approach.” in Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. January 4–9, 2021; 166–175.
  32. Deci E. L. Ryan R. M. (2014). “ The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace,” in The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. ed. Gagné M. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 13– 32.
  33. Duncan S. G. Aguilar G. Jensen C. G. Magnusson B. M. (2019). Survey of heteronormative attitudes and tolerance toward gender non-conformity in mountain West undergraduate students. Front. Psychol. 10: 793. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00793, PMID: 31031673 PMC6470281 · DOI
  34. Eagly A. H. Karau S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573– 598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573, PMID: 12088246 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Epley N. Waytz A. Akalis S. Cacioppo J. T. (2008). When we need a human: motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Soc. Cogn. 26, 143– 155. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143 · DOI
  36. Eyssel F. De Ruiter L. Kuchenbrandt D. Bobinger S. Hegel F. (2012). “‘If you sound like me, you must be more human’: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism.” in 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). March 5–8, 2012; IEEE, 125–126.
  37. Eyssel F. Hegel F. (2012). (s)he's got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42, 2213– 2230. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x · DOI
  38. Farrell A. E. (1995). Feminism and the media: introduction. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 20, 642– 645. doi: 10.1086/495003 · DOI
  39. Farrell L. Fry T. R. Risse L. (2016). The significance of financial self-efficacy in explaining women’s personal finance behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 54, 85– 99. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2015.07.001 · DOI
  40. Fernandez R. M. Sosa M. L. (2005). Gendering the job: networks and recruitment at a call center. Am. J. Sociol. 111, 859– 904. doi: 10.1086/497257 · DOI
  41. Finnegan E. Oakhill J. Garnham A. (2015). Counter-stereotypical pictures as a strategy for overcoming spontaneous gender stereotypes. Front. Psychol. 6: 1291. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01291, PMID: 26379606 PMC4550774 · DOI
  42. Floegel D. (2020). Labor, classification and productions of culture on Netflix. J. Doc. 77, 209– 228. doi: 10.1108/JD-06-2020-0108 · DOI
  43. Forlizzi J. Zimmerman J. Mancuso V. Kwak S. (2007). “How interface agents affect interaction between humans and computers.” in Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. August 22–25, 2007; 209–222.
  44. Ghafurian M. Ellard C. Dautenhahn K. (2021). “Social companion robots to reduce isolation: a perception change due to COVID-19.” in IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. August 30–September 3, 2021; Springer: Cham, 43–63.
  45. Gram-Hanssen K. Darby S. J. (2018). “Home is where the smart is”? Evaluating smart home research and approaches against the concept of home. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 94– 101. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.037 · DOI
  46. Gunnell K. E. Crocker P. R. Wilson P. M. Mack D. E. Zumbo B. D. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: a test of basic psychological needs theory in physical activity contexts. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14, 599– 607. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.007 · DOI
  47. Guo Y. Yin X. Liu D. Xu S. X. (2020). “’She is not just a computer’: Gender Role of AI Chatbots in Debt Collection.” in International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2020—Making Digital Inclusive: Blending the Local and the Global. December 14, 2020; Association for Information Systems.
  48. Gustafsson Sendén M. Klysing A. Lindqvist A. Renström E. A. (2019). The (not so) changing man: dynamic gender stereotypes in Sweden. Front. Psychol. 10: 37. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00037, PMID: 30761034 PMC6363713 · DOI
  49. Hall A. E. (2019). Identification and parasocial relationships with characters from Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 8, 88– 98. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000160 · DOI
  50. Hassenzahl M. Diefenbach S. Göritz A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products – facets of user experience. Interact. Comput. 22, 353– 362. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd Edn. New York: The Guilford Press.
  52. Heissel A. Pietrek A. Flunger B. Fydrich T. Rapp M. A. Heinzel S.. (2019). The validation of the German basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale in the context of mental health. Eur. J. Health Psychol. 25, 119– 132. doi: 10.1037/t71220-000 · DOI
  53. Hentschel T. Heilman M. E. Peus C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Front. Psychol. 10: 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011, PMID: 30761032 PMC6364132 · DOI
  54. Hulse L. M. Xie H. Galea E. R. (2018). Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf. Sci. 102, 1– 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001 · DOI
  55. Ilardi B. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 1789– 1805. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01066.x · DOI · Paper page
  56. Ilies R. Wagner D. Wilson K. Ceja L. Johnson M. DeRue S.. (2017). Flow at work and basic psychological needs: effects on well-being. Appl. Psychol. 66, 3– 24. doi: 10.1111/apps.12075 · DOI
  57. Jiménez-Barreto J. Rubio N. Molinillo S. (2021). “Find a flight for me, Oscar!” motivational customer experiences with chatbots. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 33, 3860– 3882. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1244 · DOI
  58. Kaplan A. Cao H. Fitz Gerald J. M. Iannotti N. Yang E. Kocks J. W.. (2021). Artificial intelligence/machine learning in respiratory medicine and potential role in asthma and COPD diagnosis. The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In Pract. 9, 2255– 2261. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.014, PMID: 33618053 · DOI
  59. Ko S. J. Judd C. M. Blair I. V. (2006). What the voice reveals: within-and between-category stereotyping on the basis of voice. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 806– 819. doi: 10.1177/0146167206286627, PMID: 16648205 · DOI
  60. Kolla B. P. Mansukhani S. Mansukhani M. P. (2016). Consumer sleep tracking devices: a review of mechanisms, validity and utility. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 13, 497– 506. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2016.1171708, PMID: 27043070 · DOI
  61. Krahé B. Uhlmann A. Herzberg M. (2021). The voice gives it away: male and female pitch as a cue for gender stereotyping. Soc. Psychol. 52, 101– 113. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000441 · DOI
  62. Laitinen A. Sahlgren O. (2021). AI systems and respect for human autonomy. Front. Artif. Intell. 4: 705164. doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.705164, PMID: 34765969 PMC8576577 · DOI
  63. Leaper C. Arias D. M. (2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for coping with sexism. Sex Roles 64, 475– 490. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1, PMID: 21475648 PMC3062025 · DOI
  64. Lee J. Finkelstein J. (2015). Consumer sleep tracking devices: a critical review. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 210, 458– 460. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-512-8-458, PMID: 25991187 · DOI
  65. Lee K. M. Liao K. Ryu S. (2007). Children’s responses to computer-synthesized speech in educational media: gender consistency and gender similarity effects. Hum. Commun. Res. 33, 310– 329. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00301.x · DOI
  66. Lee E. J. Nass C. Brave S. (2000). “ Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotype,” in CHI'00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ed. Tremaine M. (New York, USA: ACM Press), 289– 290.
  67. Li C. Wang C. J. Kee Y. H. (2013). Burnout and its relations with basic psychological needs and motivation among athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14, 692– 700. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.04.009 · DOI
  68. Li C. H. Yeh S. F. Chang T. J. Tsai M. H. Chen K. Chang Y. J. (2020). “A conversation analysis of non-progress and coping strategies with a banking task-oriented Chatbot.” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. April 25–30, 2020; 1–12.
  69. Liem C. C. Langer M. Demetriou A. Hiemstra A. M. Wicaksana A. S. Born M. P.. (2018). “ Psychology meets machine learning: interdisciplinary perspectives on algorithmic job candidate screening,” in Explainable and Interpretable Models in Computer Vision and Machine Learning eds. Escalante H. Guyon I. Baró X. Güçlütürk Y., Güçlü U. Van Gerven M. (Springer, Cham), 197– 253.
  70. Longo Y. Alcaraz-Ibáñez M. Sicilia A. (2018). Evidence supporting need satisfaction and frustration as two distinguishable constructs. Psicothema 30, 74– 81. doi: 10.1037/t68706-000, PMID: 29363474 · DOI
  71. Maedche A. Legner C. Benlian A. Berger B. Gimpel H. Hess T.. (2019). AI-based digital assistants. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 61, 535– 544. doi: 10.1007/s12599-019-00600-8 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Mara M. Appel M. (2015). Effects of lateral head tilt on user perceptions of humanoid and android robots. Comput. Hum. Behav. 44, 326– 334. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.025 · DOI
  73. Mara M. Meyer K. (2022). “ Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: An Overview of User-Specific, Car-Specific and Contextual Determinants,” in User Experience Design in the Era of Automated Driving. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 980. eds. Riener A. Jeon M. Alvarez I. Cham: Springer.
  74. Marikyan D. Papagiannidis S. Alamanos E. (2019). A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 138, 139– 154. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015 · DOI
  75. McDermott H. Choudhury N. Lewin-Runacres M. Aemn I. Moss E. (2020). Gender differences in understanding and acceptance of robot-assisted surgery. J. Robot. Surg. 14, 227– 232. doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-00960-z, PMID: 31049775 PMC7000495 · DOI
  76. McDonnell M. Baxter D. (2019). Chatbots and gender stereotyping. Interact. Comput. 31, 116– 121. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwz007 · DOI
  77. Mehrabian A. Russell J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  78. Morrissey K. Kirakowski J. (2013). “ ‘Realness’ in chatbots: establishing quantifiable criteria.” in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. July 21–26, 2013; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 87– 96.
  79. Muhammad N. M. Schneider M. Hill A. Yau D. M. (2019). “How the use of iPad and smartphones creates social isolation.” in Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), March 18, 2019; 1060– 1065.
  80. Mullennix J. W. Stern S. E. Wilson S. J. Dyson C. L. (2003). Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19, 407– 424. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00081-X · DOI
  81. Nguyen Q. N. Sidorova A. (2018). “Understanding user interactions with a chatbot: a self-determination theory approach.” in Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). August 16, 2018; New Orleans, United States of America, 1–5.
  82. Noor N. Rao Hill S. Troshani I. (2021). Artificial intelligence service agents: role of parasocial relationship. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 61, 1– 15. doi: 10.1080/08874417.2021.1962213 · DOI
  83. Nowak K. L. Biocca F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence 12, 481– 494. doi: 10.1162/105474603322761289 · DOI
  84. Pizzi G. Scarpi D. Pantano E. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the new forms of interaction: who has the control when interacting with a chatbot? J. Bus. Res. 129, 878– 890. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  85. Powell A. L. (2013). Computer anxiety: comparison of research from the 1990s and 2000s. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2337– 2381. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.012 · DOI
  86. Reeves B. Nass C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
  87. Robles R. J. Kim T. H. (2010). Applications, systems and methods in smart home technology: a review. Int. J. Adv. Sci. 15, 37– 48.
  88. Rubin K. H. Bukowski W. M. Bowker J. (2016). “ Children in groups,” in The Handbook of Child Psychology. 7th Edn. eds. Lerner R. (Series ed.) and Bornstein M. (Volume ed.), (New York, Wiley), 175– 222.
  89. Saunders K. J. Kashubeck-West S. (2006). The relations among feminist identity development, gender-role orientation, and psychological well-being in women. Psychol. Women Q. 30, 199– 211. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00282.x · DOI
  90. Schock A. K. Gruber F. M. Scherndl T. Ortner T. M. (2019). Tempering agency with communion increases women's leadership emergence in all-women groups: evidence for role congruity theory in a field setting. Leadersh. Q. 30, 189– 198. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.003 · DOI
  91. Sheldon K. M. Hilpert J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: an alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motiv. Emot. 36, 439– 451. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9279-4 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Stafford R. Q. MacDonald B. A. Jayawardena C. Wegner D. M. Broadbent E. (2014). Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 17– 32. doi: 10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y · DOI
  93. Stamate A. N. Sauvé G. Denis P. L. (2021). The rise of the machines and how they impact workers' psychological health: An empirical study. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 3, 942– 955. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.315 · DOI
  94. Standley J. M. Madsen C. K. (1990). Comparison of infant preferences and responses to auditory stimuli: music, mother, and other female voice. J. Music. Ther. 27, 54– 97. doi: 10.1093/jmt/27.2.54 · DOI
  95. Stein J. P. Liebold B. Ohler P. (2019). Stay back, clever thing! Linking situational control and human uniqueness concerns to the aversion against autonomous technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 95, 73– 82. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.021 · DOI
  96. Sternadori M. Abitbol A. (2019). Support for women’s rights and feminist self-identification as antecedents of attitude toward femvertising. J. Consum. Mark. 36, 740– 750. doi: 10.1108/JCM-05-2018-2661 · DOI
  97. Thies I. M. Menon N. Magapu S. Subramony M. O’neill J. (2017). “How do you want your chatbot? An exploratory Wizard-of-Oz study with young, urban Indians.” in IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. September 20, 2017; (Cham: Springer), 441–459.
  98. Tian L. Chen H. Huebner E. S. (2014). The longitudinal relationships between basic psychological needs satisfaction at school and school-related subjective well-being in adolescents. Soc. Indic. Res. 119, 353– 372. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0495-4 · DOI
  99. Tindall I. K. Curtis G. J. (2019). Validation of the measurement of need frustration. Front. Psychol. 10: 1742. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01742, PMID: 31428014 PMC6690005 · DOI
  100. Tyler J. M. McCullough J. D. (2009). Violating prescriptive stereotypes on job resumes: A self-presentational perspective. Manag. Commun. Q. 23, 272– 287. doi: 10.1177/0893318909341412 · DOI
  101. van Breen J. A. Spears R. Kuppens T. de Lemus S. (2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Front. Psychol. 8: 1019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0101, PMID: 28713297 PMC5492047 · DOI
  102. von Hippel C. Wiryakusuma C. Bowden J. Shochet M. (2011). Stereotype threat and female communication styles. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 1312– 1324. doi: 10.1177/0146167211410439, PMID: 21646549 · DOI
  103. Wang Y. Tian L. Huebner E. S. (2019). Basic psychological needs satisfaction at school, behavioral school engagement, and academic achievement: longitudinal reciprocal relations among elementary school students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 56, 130– 139. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.003 · DOI
  104. Weisman H. Janardhanan N. S. (2020). “The instantaneity of gendered voice assistant technology and manager perceptions of subordinate help.” in Academy of Management Proceedings. Vol. 2020, No. 1 (Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management). 21149.
  105. Wiley M. G. Eskilson A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: what if women talk more like men? Sex Roles 12, 993– 1007. doi: 10.1007/BF00288100 · DOI
  106. Williams G. C. Halvari H. Niemiec C. P. Sørebø Ø. Olafsen A. H. Westbye C. (2014). Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-related correlates: a self-determination theory perspective. Work Stress 28, 404– 419. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.971920 · DOI · Paper page
  107. Williams K. J. Lillibridge J. R. (1992). Perceived self-competence and organizational behavior. Adv. Psychol. 82, 155– 184. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62602-3 · DOI
  108. Wilson C. Hargreaves T. Hauxwell-Baldwin R. (2017). Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy 103, 72– 83. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.047 · DOI · Paper page
  109. Xie T. Pentina I. (2022). “Attachment theory as a framework to understand relationships with social Chatbots: a case study of Replika.” in Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. January 4, 2022.
  110. Yang X. Aurisicchio M. (2021). “Designing conversational agents: a self-determination theory approach.” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. May 8–13, 2021; 1–16.
  111. Zafari S. Koeszegi S. T. (2020). Attitudes toward attributed agency: role of perceived control. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13, 2071– 2080. doi: 10.1007/s12369-020-00672-7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moradbakhti, L., Schreibelmayr, S., & Mara, M.
Affiliations
Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
Corresponding author
Moradbakhti, Laura
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-06-14
Volume
13
Pages
855091-855091
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855091
PMC
PMC9239329
OpenAlex
W4282933114
Cited by
67
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University Library Linz repository (Johannes Kepler Universitat Linz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
basic psychological needs, gender stereotypes, voice assistants, AI agents, autonomy satisfaction, intention to use, gendered technology, retail banking, technology acceptance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review