ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Voice-based judgments of sex, height, weight, attractiveness, health, and psychological traits based on free speech versus scripted speech.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can conceptual beliefs shape impressions from voices?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Automated Speech Analysis for Risk Detection of Depression, Anxiety, Insomnia, and Fatigue: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.