Highlights 💡: Vocal Fundamental Frequency and Sound Pressure Level in Charismatic Speech

Source: @signorello2020

Hinzugefügt am 2022-11-06

investigates voice fundamental frequency (f0) and sound pressure level (SPL) in female and male French, Italian, Brazilian, and American politicians (p. 1)

investigates voice fundamental frequency (f0) and sound pressure level (SPL) in female and male French, Italian, Brazilian, and American politicians (p. 1)

Patterns of f0 manipulation were shared across genders and cultures, suggesting this dimension might be biologically based and is exploited by leaders to convey dominance. (p. 1)

Patterns of f0 manipulation were shared across genders and cultures, suggesting this dimension might be biologically based and is exploited by leaders to convey dominance. (p. 1)

vision, emotions, and dominance, that leaders use to share beliefs and achieve goals (p. 2)

vision, emotions, and dominance, that leaders use to share beliefs and achieve goals (p. 2)

“charisma of the mind”—verbal behaviors that convey the strength of the leaders’ ideas and visions, expressed through spoken words and written texts—and/or through “charisma of the body,” the non-verbal behaviors (voice, facial expression, gesture, posture, etc.) (p. 2)

“charisma of the mind”—verbal behaviors that convey the strength of the leaders’ ideas and visions, expressed through spoken words and written texts—and/or through “charisma of the body,” the non-verbal behaviors (voice, facial expression, gesture, posture, etc.) (p. 2)

Speakers directly manipulate the acoustical patterns of their speech to convey different traits across communicative contexts (environmental acoustics, audience’s social status, gender, and age [11]). (p. 2)

f0 depends in part on learned factors (p. 2)

voice quality shared by a given group of speakers (p. 2)

anatomy (p. 2)

physiology (p. 2)

can reliably signal physical size (p. 2)

emotional state [30,31], personality [7], sex [32], age [21], attractiveness [33,34], and threat potential [19], in addition to leadership status [17,35,36] (p. 2)

SPL is the primary acoustic correlate of perceived loudness (p. 3)

related to prosodic features, such as pauses in utterances, articulatory changes, and word stress [28] (p. 3)

Three communicative contexts (p. 3)

monologue addressed to followers in a formal campaign context (p. 3)

monologue addressed to other politicians at a formal conference (p. 3)

informal face-to-face interview (p. 3)

we hypothesized that all speakers, regardless of gender and language spoken, would use lower mean f0…to convey dominant charisma…audience of their peers (p. 3)

narrower ranges of f0 and SPL (p. 3)

higher f0, with wider f0 and SPL ranges, when addressing listeners of lower status (p. 3)

Speakers were selected through surveys (p. 4)

170 participants (American-English native speakers; 120 females, 50 males; average age 21.96 y.o.) generated lists of adjectives (p. 4)

the 68 most-frequently occurring responses were selected (p. 4)

corresponded to 5 dimensions of charisma: empathy, competence, benevolence, dominance, and ability to induce emotions (p. 4)

proactive-seductive (p. 4)

benevolent-competent (p. 4)

authoritarianthreatening (p. 4)

two female American English (p. 4)

three male American English (p. 4)

two male Italian (p. 4)

two male French (p. 4)

two male Brazilian Portuguese (p. 4)

speakers used the highest mean f0s in the monologues (p. 6)

intermediate (161 Hz; SD = 26 Hz) in the conference context (p. 6)

lowest (126 Hz; SD = 23) in the context of a dyadic interview (p. 6)

Previous experiments [40,49,60] demonstrated that increasing f0 and f0 variability arouses listeners’ emotions while conveying charisma types in a way that matches the diverse expectations of a large group of listeners (p. 8)

Higher f0 and larger f0 variations appear to emphasize the speakers’ social status (p. 8)

subtle integration between cross-language abilities and culture-/language-specific strategies (p. 10)

adaptation to contexts of communication and time (p. 10)

exploitation of voice in terms of vocal fundamental frequency and loudness range (p. 10)

from different languages and cultures involved in the same context of communication (p. 10)

[10]. Mohammadi G, Mortillaro M, Vinciarelli A, The Voice of Personality: Mapping Nonverbal Vocal Behavior into Trait Attributions, in: Int. Work. Soc. Signal Process, 2010: pp. 17–20. (p. 11)

[10]. Mohammadi G, Mortillaro M, Vinciarelli A, The Voice of Personality: Mapping Nonverbal Vocal Behavior into Trait Attributions, in: Int. Work. Soc. Signal Process, 2010: pp. 17–20. (p. 11)

investigates voice fundamental frequency (f0) and sound pressure level (SPL) in female and male French, Italian, Brazilian, and American politicians (p. 1)

Patterns of f0 manipulation were shared across genders and cultures, suggesting this dimension might be biologically based and is exploited by leaders to convey dominance. (p. 1)

vision, emotions, and dominance, that leaders use to share beliefs and achieve goals (p. 2)

“charisma of the mind”—verbal behaviors that convey the strength of the leaders’ ideas and visions, expressed through spoken words and written texts—and/or through “charisma of the body,” the non-verbal behaviors (voice, facial expression, gesture, posture, etc.) (p. 2)

Speakers directly manipulate the acoustical patterns of their speech to convey different traits across communicative contexts (environmental acoustics, audience’s social status, gender, and age [11]). (p. 2)

f0 depends in part on learned factors (p. 2)

voice quality shared by a given group of speakers (p. 2)

s anatomy (p. 2)

physiology (p. 2)

can reliably signal physical size (p. 2)

s emotional state [30,31], personality [7], sex [32], age [21], attractiveness [33,34], and threat potential [19], in addition to leadership status [17,35,36] (p. 2)

SPL is the primary acoustic correlate of perceived loudness, (p. 3)

related to prosodic features, such as pauses in utterances, articulatory changes, and word stress [28]. (p. 3)

Three communicative contexts (p. 3)

monologue addressed to followers in a formal campaign context (p. 3)

monologue addressed to other politicians at a formal conference (p. 3)

informal face-to-face interview (p. 3)

we hypothesized that all speakers, regardless of gender and language spoken, would use lower mean f0…to convey dominant charisma…audience of their peers (p. 3)

narrower ranges of f0 and SPL (p. 3)

higher f0, with wider f0 and SPL ranges, when addressing listeners of lower status (p. 3)

Speakers were selected through surveys (p. 4)

170 participants (American-English native speakers; 120 females, 50 males; average age 21.96 y.o.) generated lists of adjectives (p. 4)

the 68 most-frequently occurring responses were selected. (p. 4)

corresponded to 5 dimensions of charisma: empathy, competence, benevolence, dominance, and ability to induce emotions. (p. 4)

proactive-seductive (p. 4)

, benevolent-competent (p. 4)

d authoritarianthreatening (p. 4)

two female American English (p. 4)

three male American English (p. 4)

two male Italian (p. 4)

two male French (p. 4)

two male Brazilian Portuguese (p. 4)

speakers used the highest mean f0s in the monologues, (p. 6)

intermediate (161 Hz; SD = 26 Hz) in the conference context, (p. 6)

lowest (126 Hz; SD = 23) in the context of a dyadic interview (p. 6)

. Previous experiments [40,49,60] demonstrated that increasing f0 and f0 variability arouses listeners’ emotions while conveying charisma types in a way that matches the diverse expectations of a large group of listeners (p. 8)

Higher f0 and larger f0 variations appear to emphasize the speakers’ social status (p. 8)

subtle integration between cross-language abilities and culture-/language-specific strategies (p. 10)

adaptation to contexts of communication and time. (p. 10)

exploitation of voice in terms of vocal fundamental frequency and loudness range (p. 10)

from different languages and cultures involved in the same context of communication, (p. 10)

[10]. Mohammadi G, Mortillaro M, Vinciarelli A, The Voice of Personality: Mapping Nonverbal Vocal Behavior into Trait Attributions, in: Int. Work. Soc. Signal Process, 2010: pp. 17–20. (p. 11)