Utterances reveal not only semantic information but also information about the speaker’s social category membership, including sexual orientation. In four studies (N = 345), we investigated how the meaning of what is being said changes as a function of the speaker’s voice. In Studies 1a/1b, gay- and straight-sounding voices uttered the same sentences. Listeners indicated the likelihood that the speaker was referring to one among two target objects varying along gender-stereotypical characteristics. Listeners envisaged a more “feminine” object when the sentence was uttered by a gay-sounding speaker, and a more “masculine” object when the speaker sounded heterosexual. In Studies 2a/2b, listeners were asked to disambiguate sentences that involved a stereotypical behavior and were open to different interpretations. Listeners disambiguated the sentences by interpreting the action in relation to sexual-orientation information conveyed by voice. Results show that the speaker’s voice changes the subjective meaning of sentences, aligning it to gender-stereotypical expectations.
AppleW.StreeterL. A.KraussR. M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 715-727. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.715
2.
BadzinskiD. M. (1991). Children’s cognitive representations of discourse: Effects of vocal cues on text comprehension. Communication Research, 18, 715-736. doi:10.1177/009365091018006001
3.
BadzinskiD. M.GillM. M. (1994). Discourse features and message comprehension. In DeetzS. A. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 17 (pp. 301-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BlashillA. J.PowlishtaK. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783-793. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7
5.
BodieG. D. (2011). The understudied nature of listening in interpersonal communication: Introduction to a special issue. International Journal of Listening, 25, 1-9. doi:10.1080/10904018.2011.536462
6.
BodieG. D.WorthingtonD.ImhofM.CooperL. O. (2008). What would a unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors. International Journal of Listening, 22, 103-122. doi:10.1080/10904010802174867
7.
BugentalD. E. (1974). Interpretations of naturally occurring discrepancies between words and intonation: Modes of inconsistency resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 125-133. doi:10.1037/h0036654
8.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48. doi:10.1177/0261927X93121003
9.
Campbell-KiblerK. (2011). Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech, 86, 52-68. doi:10.1215/00031283-1277510
10.
CohenH.DouaireJ.ElsabbaghM. (2001). The role of prosody in discourse processing. Brain and Cognition, 46, 73-82. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(01)80038-5
11.
DarleyJ. M.GrossP. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20
12.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 56, 5-18.
13.
DragojevicM. (2018). Language attitudes. In GilesH.HarwoodJ. (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of intergroup communication (Vol. 2, pp. 35-57). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
DragojevicM.BerglundC.BlauveltT. K. (2018). Figuring out who’s who: The role of social categorization in the language attitudes process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37, 28-50. doi:10.1177/0261927X17706942
15.
EdwardsR. (1998). The effects of gender, gender-role, and values on the interpretation of messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 52-71. doi:10.1177/0261927X980171003
16.
EdwardsR. (2011). Listening and message interpretation. International Journal of Listening, 25, 47-65. doi:10.1177/0261927X980171003
17.
FasoliF.MaassA.PaladinoM. P.SulpizioS. (2017). Gay-and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1261-1277. doi:10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0
18.
FasoliF.MaassA.SulpizioS. (2016). Communicating the “invisible”: The case of sexual orientation. In GilesH.MaassA. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 193-204). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
19.
FernaldA. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the melody the message?Child Development, 1497-1510. doi:10.2307/1130938
20.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. doi:10.1037/pspa0000163
21.
GarveyC.CaramazzaA. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.
22.
GaudioR. P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69, 30-57. doi:10.2307/455948
23.
GilesH. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GilesH.HenwoodK.CouplandN.HarrimanJ.CouplandJ. (1992). Language attitudes and cognitive mediation. Human Communication Research, 18, 500-527. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00570.x
25.
GlenwrightM.ParackelJ. M.CheungK. R.NilsenE. S. (2014). Intonation influences how children and adults interpret sarcasm. Journal of Child Language, 41, 472-484. doi:10.1017/S0305000912000773
26.
GnevshevaK. (2016). Beyond the language: Listener comments on extra-linguistic cues in perception tasks. Language Awareness, 25, 257-271. doi:10.1080/09658416.2016.1197932
27.
GrigginE. M. (Ed.). (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
28.
HajekC.GilesH. (2005). Intergroup communication schemas: Cognitive representations of talk with gay men. Language & Communication, 25, 161-181. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2005.01.002
29.
HerekG. M.McLemoreK. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309-333. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826
30.
ImhofM. (2010). What is going on in the mind of the listener? The cognitive psychology of listening. In WolvinA. (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 97-126). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
31.
JohnM. F. S.McClellandJ. L. (1990). Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 217-257. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90008-N
32.
KaganovichN.FrancisA. L.MelaraR. D. (2006). Electrophysiological evidence for early interaction between talker and linguistic information during speech perception. Brain Research, 1114, 161-172. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.049
33.
KingE.SumnerM. (2015). Voice-specific effects in semantic association. In BelloP.GuariniM.McShaneM.ScassellatiB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1111-1116). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
34.
KiteM. E.DeauxK. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-96. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x
35.
KreimanJ. (1997). Listening to voices: Theory and practice in voice perception research. In JohnsonK.MullenixJ. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 85-108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36.
KreinerH.SturtP.GarrodS. (2008). Processing definitional and stereotypical gender in reference resolution: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 239-261. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.003
37.
LattnerS.FriedericiA. D. (2003). Talker’s voice and gender stereotype in auditory sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 339, 191-194. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00027-2
38.
LehisteI.LassN. J. (1976). Suprasegmental features of speech. In LassN. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in experimental phonetics (pp. 225-239). New York, NY: Academic Press.
39.
LevonE. (2015). Integrating intersectionality in language, gender, and sexuality research. Language & Linguistics Compass, 9, 295-308. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12147
40.
LinvilleS. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 35-48. doi:10.1159/000021447
41.
LyonsA.KashimaY. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through communication? The role of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 989-1005. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.989
42.
MackS.MunsonB. (2012). The influence of/s/quality on ratings of men’s sexual orientation: Explicit and implicit measures of the “gay lisp” stereotype. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 198-212. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.002
43.
MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG. V. (2001). Social cognition: Categorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239-255. doi:10.1348/000712601162059
44.
MacraeC. N.MilneA. B.BodenhausenG. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37-47. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.37
45.
McGowanK. B. (2015). Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech, 58, 502-521. doi:10.1177/0023830914565191
46.
MunsonB. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50, 125-142. doi:10.1177/00238309070500010601
47.
NygaardL. C.HeroldD. S.NamyL. L. (2009). The semantics of prosody: Acoustic and perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning. Cognitive Science, 33, 127-146. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01007.x
48.
NygaardL. C.LundersE. A. (2002). Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. Journal of Memory & Cognition, 30, 583-593.
49.
PexmanP. M.OlineckK. M. (2002). Understanding irony: How do stereotypes cue speaker intent?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 245-274. doi:10.1177/0261927X02021003003
50.
PharaoN.MaegaardM.MøllerJ. S.KristiansenT. (2014). Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different prosodic contexts. Language in Society, 43, 1-31. doi:10.1017/S0047404513000857
51.
PlatowM.BrodieM. (1999). The effects of linguistic voice on evaluations and attributions of ingroup and outgroup members. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 187-200. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00033
52.
RiegerG.LinsenmeierJ. A.GygaxL.GarciaS.BaileyJ. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: The role of masculinity–femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 124-140. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2
53.
RuleN. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 129-139. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0779-2
54.
SagarH. A.SchofieldJ. W. (1980). Racial and behavioral cues in black and white children’s perceptions of ambiguously aggressive acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 590-598. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.590
55.
SchaferA.CarlsonK.CliftonH.Jr.FrazierL. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75-105. doi:10.1177/00238309000430010301
56.
SeniorB.HuiJ.BabelM. (2018). Liu vs. Liu vs. Lick? Name influence on voice recall. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 1117-1146. doi:10.1017/S0142716418000267
57.
SmythR.JacobsG.RogersH. (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32, 329-350. doi:10.1017/S0047404503323024
58.
SulpizioS.FasoliF.AntonioR.EysselF.PaladinoM. P.DiehlC. (2019). Auditory gaydar: Perception of sexual orientation based on female voice. Language and Speech. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0023830919828201
59.
SulpizioS.FasoliF.MaassA.PaladinoM. P.VespignaniF.EysselF.BentlerD. (2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within and across languages. PLoS ONE, 10, e0128882. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128882
60.
SumnerM.KataokaR. (2013). Effects of phonetically-cued talker variation on semantic encoding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134, EL485-EL491. doi:10.1121/1.4826151
61.
SumnerM.KimS. K.KingE.McGowanK. B. (2014). The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 10-13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01015
62.
TracyE. C.BainterS. A.SatarianoN. P. (2015). Judgments of self-identified gay and heterosexual male speakers: Which phonemes are most salient in determining sexual orientation?Journal of Phonetics, 52, 13-25. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.001
63.
Van BerkumJ. J.Van den BrinkD.TesinkC. M.KosM.HagoortP. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 580-591. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20054
64.
Van BorselJ.VandaeleJ.CorthalsP. (2013). Pitch and pitch variation in lesbian women. Journal of Voice, 27, 656e13-656e16. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.04.008
65.
VaughnA. A.TeetersS. A.SadlerM. S.CronanS. B. (2017). Stereotypes, emotions, and behaviors toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 64, 1890-1911. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1273718
66.
WalkerA.HayJ. (2011). Congruence between “word age” and “voice age” facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology, 2, 219-237. doi:10.1515/labphon.2011.007
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
