The Attractiveness of Average Speech Rhythms: Revisiting the Average Effect From a Crosslinguistic Perspective

Abstract

The current study investigates the average effect: the tendency for humans to appreciate an averaged (face, bird, wristwatch, car, and so on) over an individual instance. The effect holds across cultures, despite varying conceptualizations of attractiveness. While much research has been conducted on the average effect in visual perception, much less is known about the extent to which this effect applies to language and speech. This study investigates the attractiveness of average speech rhythms in Dutch and Mandarin Chinese, two typologically different languages. This was tested in a series of perception experiments in either language in which native listeners chose the most attractive one from a pair of acoustically manipulated rhythms. For each language, two experiments were carried out to control for the potential influence of the acoustic manipulation on the average effect. The results confirm the average effect in both languages, and they do not exclude individual variation in the listeners’ perception of attractiveness. The outcomes provide a new crosslinguistic perspective and give rise to alternative explanations to the average effect.

Keywords

Rhythm average effect prosody Dutch Mandarin Chinese

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albert

Cangemi

Grice

(2018). Using periodic energy to enrich acoustic representations of pitch in speech: A demonstration. Speech Prosody, 2018, 804–808. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-162

Arvaniti

(2009). Rhythm, timing and the timing of rhythm. Phonetica, 66(1–2), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1159/000208930

Arvaniti

(2012). The usefulness of metrics in the quantification of speech rhythm. Journal of Phonetics, 40(3), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.02.003

Baudouin

J.-Y.

Tiberghien

(2004). Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychologica, 117(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.07.002

Beckman

M. E.

Venditti

J. J.

(2010). Tone and intonation. In Hardcastle

W. J.

Laver

Gibbon

F. E.

(Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (1st ed., pp. 603–652). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444317251.ch16

Belin

(2021). On voice averaging and attractiveness. In Weiss

Trouvain

Barkat-Defradas

Ohala

J. J.

(Eds.), Voice attractiveness: Prosody, phonology and phonetics (pp. 139–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6627-1_8

Boersma

Weenink

(2022). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org/

Borrás-Comes

Kaland

Prieto

Swerts

(2014). Audiovisual correlates of interrogativity: A comparative analysis of Catalan and Dutch. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-013-0162-0

Bosker

H. R.

(2021). The contribution of amplitude modulations in speech to perceived charisma. In Weiss

Trouvain

Barkat-Defradas

Ohala

J. J.

(Eds.), Voice attractiveness: Prosody, phonology and phonetics (pp. 165–181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6627-1_10

10.

Bosker

H. R.

Ghitza

(2018). Entrained theta oscillations guide perception of subsequent speech: Behavioural evidence from rate normalisation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(8), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1439179

11.

Brehm

Alday

P. M.

(2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104334

12.

Bruckert

Bestelmeyer

Latinus

Rouger

Charest

Rousselet

G. A.

Kawahara

Belin

(2010). Vocal attractiveness increases by averaging. Current Biology, 20(2), 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.034

13.

Collins

S. A.

Missing

(2003). Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women. Animal Behaviour, 65(5), 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2123

14.

Crespo Sendra

Kaland

Swerts

Prieto

. (2013). Perceiving incredulity: The role of intonation and facial gestures. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.008

15.

DeBruine

L. M.

Jones

B. C.

Unger

Little

A. C.

Feinberg

D. R.

(2007). Dissociating averageness and attractiveness: Attractive faces are not always average. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1420–1430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1420

16.

Dellwo

(2008). The role of speech rate in perceiving speech rhythm. ISCA. https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-111799

17.

Dellwo

Wagner

(2003). Relations between language rhythm and speech rate. https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-111779

18.

Ding

Patel

A. D.

Chen

Butler

Luo

Poeppel

(2017). Temporal modulations in speech and music. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.011

19.

Feinberg

D. R.

DeBruine

L. M.

Jones

B. C.

Perrett

D. I.

(2008). The role of femininity and averageness of voice pitch in aesthetic judgments of women’s voices. Perception, 37(4), 615–623. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5514

20.

Galton

(1879). composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons into a single resultant figure. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 8, 132. https://doi.org/10.2307/2841021

21.

Grabe

Low

E. L.

(2002). Durational variability in speech and the Rhythm Class Hypothesis. In Gussenhoven

Warner

(Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 515–546). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105.515

22.

Gussenhoven

Chen

(Eds.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of language prosody (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832232.001.0001

23.

Halberstadt

Rhodes

(2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11(4), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00257

24.

Halberstadt

Rhodes

(2003). It’s not just average faces that are attractive: Computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196479

25.

Holm

(1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.

26.

Jacobs

(1894). The fables of Aesop. Macmillan.

27.

Jun

S.-A.

(Ed.). (2014a). Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford University Press.

28.

Jun

S.-A.

(2014b). Prosodic typology: By prominence type, word prosody, and macro-rhythm. In Jun

S.-A.

(Ed.), Prosodic typology II (pp. 520–539). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0017

29.

Kaland

(2022). Bending the string: Intonation contour length as a correlate of macro-rhythm. Interspeech, 2022, 5233–5237. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2022-185

30.

Kawahara

Matsui

(2003). Auditory morphing based on an elastic perceptual distance metric in an interference-free time-frequency representation. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings (ICASSP ’03). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2003.1198766

31.

Kenny

D. A.

(1987). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Little, Brown and Company.

32.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

33.

Langlois

J. H.

Roggman

L. A.

(1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x

34.

Langlois

J. H.

Roggman

L. A.

Musselman

(1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science, 5(4), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00503.x

35.

Lehiste

(1977). Isochrony reconsidered. Journal of Phonetics, 5(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31139-8

36.

Lenth

R. V.

(2023). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means [Manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

37.

Mok

Dellwo

(2008). Comparing native and non-native speech rhythm using acoustic rhythmic measures: Cantonese, Beijing Mandarin and English. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Speech Prosody, SP 2008 (pp. 423–426). International Speech Communication Association.

38.

Nolan

Jeon

H.-S.

(2014). Speech rhythm: A metaphor? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1658), 20130396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0396

39.

Pike

K. L.

(1945). The intonation of American English. University of Michigan Press.

40.

Polyanskaya

Busá

M. G.

Ordin

(2020). Capturing cross-linguistic differences in macro-rhythm: The case of Italian and English. Language and Speech, 63(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830919835849

41.

Prechtel

(2020). Macro-rhythm in English and Spanish: Evidence from Radio Newscaster Speech. In Speech Prosody 2020 (pp. 675–679). International Speech Communication Association. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020-138

42.

Qualtrics International Inc. (2020). Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com/

43.

R Core Team. (2022). R: The R project for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/

44.

Repp

B. H.

(1997). The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments. Music Perception, 14(4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285732

45.

Rhodes

Jeffery

Watson

T. L.

Clifford

C. W.

Nakayama

(2003). Fitting the mind to the world: Face Adaptation and Attractiveness Aftereffects. Psychological Science, 14(6), 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci1465.x

46.

Rhodes

Yoshikawa

Clark

Lee

McKay

Akamatsu

(2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in Non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 30(5), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3123

47.

R Studio Team. (2022). RStudio: Integrated development for R. https://www.rstudio.com/

48.

Searle

S. R.

Speed

F. M.

Milliken

G. A.

(1980). Population marginal means in the linear model: An alternative to least squares means. The American Statistician, 34(4), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031

49.

Smith

Wood

(1981, October). The “USI,” or universal synthesizer interface. Presented at the 70th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Paper 1845, New York, NY, United States.

50.

Swerts

Kaland

(submitted). Mean rhythm. Listeners prefer speech with quantitatively average syllable durations [Preprint]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4472289

51.

Thornhill

Gangestad

S. W.

(1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4(3), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692201

52.

ToDI Collective. (2019). ToDI second edition–Transcription of Dutch intonation (2nd ed., Release 2.3). http://todi.let.kun.nl/ToDI/home.htm

53.

Valentine

Darling

Donnelly

(2004). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 482–487. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196599

54.

Varnet

Ortiz-Barajas

M. C.

Erra

R. G.

Gervain

Lorenzi

(2017). A cross-linguistic study of speech modulation spectra. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(4), 1976–1989. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5006179J2

55.

Weiss

Trouvain

Barkat-Defradas

Ohala

J. J.

(Eds.). (2021). Voice attractiveness: Studies on sexy, likable, and charismatic speakers. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6627-1