Abstract
How do we perceive others based on their voices? This question has attracted research and media attention for decades, producing hundreds of studies showing that the voice is socially and biologically relevant, but these studies vary in methodology and ecological validity. Here we test whether vocalizers producing read versus free speech are judged similarly by listeners on ten biological and/or psychosocial traits. In perception experiments using speech from 208 men and women and ratings from 4,088 listeners, we show that listeners’ assessments of vocalizer sex and age are highly accurate, regardless of speech type. Assessments of body size, femininity-masculinity and women’s health also did not differ between free and read speech. In contrast, read speech elicited higher ratings of attractiveness, dominance and trustworthiness in both sexes and of health in males compared to free speech. Importantly, these differences were small, and we additionally show moderate to strong correlations between ratings of the same vocalizers based on their read and free speech for all ten traits, indicating that voice-based judgments are highly consistent within speakers, whether or not speech is spontaneous. Our results provide evidence that the human voice can communicate various biological and psychosocial traits via both read and free speech, with theoretical and practical implications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Raw data and codebooks for Jamovi and R scripts can be retrieved from: https://osf.io/ga4tp/?view_only=6e0f6b455db14bf79882c0f910277d96.
References
Ari, N., & Ustazhanov, M. (2014). Matplotlib in python. 2014 11th International Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Atkinson, J., Pipitone, R. N., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Mberira, M., Bartels, A., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2012). Voice and Handgrip Strength Predict Reproductive Success in a Group of Indigenous African Females. PloS One, 7(8), e41811.
Aung, T., & Puts, D. (2020). Voice pitch: A window into the communication of social power. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 154–161.
Ferdenzi, C., Patel, S., Mehu-Blantar, I., Khidasheli, M., Sander, D., & Delplanque, S. (2013). Voice attractiveness: Influence of stimulus duration and type. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 405–413.
Groyecka, A., Pisanski, K., Sorokowska, A., Havlíček, J., Karwowski, M., Puts, D., Roberts, C. S., & Sorokowski, P. (2017). Attractiveness is multimodal: beauty is also in the nose and ear of the beholder. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 778.
Groyecka-Bernard, A., Pisanski, K., Frąckowiak, T., Kobylarek, A., Kupczyk, P., Oleszkiewicz, A., Sabiniewicz, A., Wróbel, M., & Sorokowski, P. (2022). Do voice-based judgments of socially relevant speaker traits differ across speech types? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(10), 3674–3694.
Jensen, A. R. (2001). Vocabulary and general intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(6), 1109–1110.
Kamiloğlu, R. G., & Sauter, D. A. (2021). Voice production and perception. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-766
Knowles, K. K., & Little, A. C. (2016). Vocal fundamental and formant frequencies affect perceptions of speaker cooperativeness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1657–1675.
Kordsmeyer, T. L., Hunt, J., Puts, D. A., Ostner, J., & Penke, L. (2018). The relative importance of intra- and intersexual selec- tion on human male sexually dimorphic traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(4), 424–436.
Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D. (2011). Foundation of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. John Wiley & Sons.
Latinus, M., & Belin, P. (2011). Human voice perception. Current Biology, 21(4), R143–R145.
Lavan, N. (2023). The time course of person perception from voices: A behavioral study. Psychological Science, 34(7), 771–783.
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., & Makowski, D. (2020). Extracting, computing and exploring the parameters of statistical models using R. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(53), 2445.
Mahrholz, G., Belin, P., & McAleer, P. (2018). Judgements of a speaker’s personality are correlated across differing content and stimulus type. PloS One, 13(10), e0204991.
Mayew, W. J., Parsons, C. A., & Venkatachalam, M. (2013). Voice pitch and the labor market success of male chief executive officers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(4), 243–248.
McAleer, P., Todorov, A., & Belin, P. (2014). How do you say ‘Hello’? Personality impressions from brief novel voices. PloS one, 9(3), e90779.
Painter, D., Fasoli, F., & Sulpizio, S. (2021/in press). The impact of stimuli length and analytic method on auditory ‘Gaydar’ research. Journal of Voice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.08.016
Pipitone, N. R., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2008). Women’s voice attractiveness varies across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(4), 268–274.
Pisanski, K., Fraccaro, P. J., Tigue, C. C., O’Connor, J. J., Röder, S., Andrews, P. W., Fink, B., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2014). Vocal indicators of body size in men and women: a meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour, 95, 89–99.
Pisanski, K., Nowak, J., & Sorokowski, P. (2016). Individual differences in cortisol stress response predict increases in voice pitch during exam stress. Physiology & Behavior, 163, 234–238.
Pisanski, K., Raine, J., & Reby, D. (2020). Individual differences in human voice pitch are preserved from speech to screams, roars and pain cries. Royal Society open science, 7(2), 191642.
Pisanski, K., Groyecka-Bernard, A., & Sorokowski, P. (2021). Human voice pitch measures are robust across a variety of speech recordings: methodological and theoretical implications. Biology Letters, 17(9), 20210356.
Pisanski, K., & Bryant, G. A. (2019). The evolution of voice perception. In N. Edsheim & K. Meizel (Eds.), The oxford handbook of voice studies (pp. 269–300). The Oxford Handbook of Voice Studies.
Puts, D. A., Hodges, C. R., Cárdenas, R. A., & Gaulin, S. J. (2007). Men’s voices as dominance signals: vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(5), 340–344.
Rubenstein, A. J. (2005). Variation in perceived attractiveness: Differences between dynamic and static faces. Psychological Science, 16(10), 759–762.
Schild, C., Aung, T., Kordsmeyer, T. L., Cardenas, R. A., Puts, D. A., & Penke, L. (2020a). Linking human male vocal parameters to perceptions, body morphology, strength and hormonal profiles in contexts of sexual selection. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–16.
Schild, C., Stern, J., & Zettler, I. (2020b). Linking men’s voice pitch to actual and perceived trustworthiness across domains. Behavioral Ecology, 31(1), 164–175.
Sorokowski, P., Puts, D., Johnson, J., Żółkiewicz, O., Oleszkiewicz, A., Sorokowska, A., Kowal, M., Borkowska, B., & Pisanski, K. (2019). Voice of authority: professionals lower their vocal frequencies when giving expert advice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43(2), 257–269.
Sorokowski, P., Groyecka-Bernard, A., & Luty, J. (2022). Methodological aspects of using different lengths stimuli in voice research: short review. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 46, 050001.
Székely, É., Henter, G. E., Beskow, J., & Gustafson, J. (2019). Spontaneous conversational speech synthesis from found data (pp. 4435–4439). Interspeech.
Székely, É., Henter, G. E., Beskow, J., & Gustafson, J. (2020). Breathing and speech planning in spontaneous speech synthesis. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 7649–7653)
Tigue, C. C., Borak, D. J., O’Connor, J. J., Schandl, C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Voice pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 210–216.
Titze, I. R. (1989). Physiologic and acoustic differences between male and female voices. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(4), 1699–1707.
Wester, M., Watts, O., & Henter, G. E. (2016). Evaluating comprehension of natural and synthetic conversational speech. Speech Prosody, 8, 736–740.
Wickham, H., Chang, W., Henry, L., Pedersen, T. L., Takahashi, K., Wilke, C., Woo, K., Yutani, H., & Dunnington, D. (2016). Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. R package version, 3(0)
Winkworth, A. L., Davis, P. J., Ellis, E., & Adams, R. D. (1994). Variability and consistency in speech breathing during reading: Lung volumes, speech intensity, and linguistic factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 37(3), 535–556.
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Centre (grant no. 2016/23/B/HS6/00771).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval
Study protocols were accepted by the ethics committee at the Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Poland.
Consent to participate
Vocalizers and raters provided informed consent prior to study inclusion.
Consent for publication
The manuscript was read and approved by all authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sorokowski, P., Pisanski, K., Frąckowiak, T. et al. Voice-based judgments of sex, height, weight, attractiveness, health, and psychological traits based on free speech versus scripted speech. Psychon Bull Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02445-5
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02445-5