Voice Changes Meaning: The Role of Gay- Versus Straight-Sounding Voices in Sentence Interpretation

Abstract

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.

Keywords

message interpretation voice sexual orientation interpersonal communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Apple

Streeter

L. A.

Krauss

R. 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

Badzinski

D. M.

(1991). Children’s cognitive representations of discourse: Effects of vocal cues on text comprehension. Communication Research, 18, 715-736. doi:10.1177/009365091018006001

Badzinski

D. M.

Gill

M. M.

(1994). Discourse features and message comprehension. In Deetz

S. A.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 17 (pp. 301-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blashill

A. J.

Powlishta

K. 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

Bodie

G. 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

Bodie

G. D.

Worthington

Imhof

Cooper

L. 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

Bugental

D. 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

Burgoon

J. K.

(1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48. doi:10.1177/0261927X93121003

Campbell-Kibler

(2011). Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech, 86, 52-68. doi:10.1215/00031283-1277510

10.

Cohen

Douaire

Elsabbagh

(2001). The role of prosody in discourse processing. Brain and Cognition, 46, 73-82. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(01)80038-5

11.

Darley

J. M.

Gross

P. 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.

Devine

P. G.

(1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 56, 5-18.

13.

Dragojevic

(2018). Language attitudes. In Giles

Harwood

(Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of intergroup communication (Vol. 2, pp. 35-57). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

Dragojevic

Berglund

Blauvelt

T. 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.

Edwards

(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.

Edwards

(2011). Listening and message interpretation. International Journal of Listening, 25, 47-65. doi:10.1177/0261927X980171003

17.

Fasoli

Maass

Paladino

M. P.

Sulpizio

(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.

Fasoli

Maass

Sulpizio

(2016). Communicating the “invisible”: The case of sexual orientation. In Giles

Maass

(Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 193-204). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

19.

Fernald

(1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the melody the message? Child Development, 1497-1510. doi:10.2307/1130938

20.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(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.

Garvey

Caramazza

(1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.

22.

Gaudio

R. P.

(1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American Speech, 69, 30-57. doi:10.2307/455948

23.

Giles

(Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Giles

Henwood

Coupland

Harriman

Coupland

(1992). Language attitudes and cognitive mediation. Human Communication Research, 18, 500-527. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00570.x

25.

Glenwright

Parackel

J. M.

Cheung

K. R.

Nilsen

E. S.

(2014). Intonation influences how children and adults interpret sarcasm. Journal of Child Language, 41, 472-484. doi:10.1017/S0305000912000773

26.

Gnevsheva

(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.

Griggin

E. M.

(Ed.). (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

28.

Hajek

Giles

(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.

Herek

G. M.

McLemore

K. A.

(2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309-333. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826

30.

Imhof

(2010). What is going on in the mind of the listener? The cognitive psychology of listening. In Wolvin

(Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 97-126). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

31.

John

M. F. S.

McClelland

J. L.

(1990). Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 217-257. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90008-N

32.

Kaganovich

Francis

A. L.

Melara

R. 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.

King

Sumner

(2015). Voice-specific effects in semantic association. In Bello

Guarini

McShane

Scassellati

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1111-1116). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

34.

Kite

M. E.

Deaux

(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.

Kreiman

(1997). Listening to voices: Theory and practice in voice perception research. In Johnson

Mullenix

(Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 85-108). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

36.

Kreiner

Sturt

Garrod

(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.

Lattner

Friederici

A. 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.

Lehiste

Lass

N. J.

(1976). Suprasegmental features of speech. In Lass

(Ed.), Contemporary issues in experimental phonetics (pp. 225-239). New York, NY: Academic Press.

39.

Levon

(2015). Integrating intersectionality in language, gender, and sexuality research. Language & Linguistics Compass, 9, 295-308. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12147

40.

Linville

S. 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.

Lyons

Kashima

(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.

Mack

Munson

(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.

Macrae

C. N.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

(2001). Social cognition: Categorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239-255. doi:10.1348/000712601162059

44.

Macrae

C. N.

Milne

A. B.

Bodenhausen

G. 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.

McGowan

K. B.

(2015). Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech, 58, 502-521. doi:10.1177/0023830914565191

46.

Munson

(2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50, 125-142. doi:10.1177/00238309070500010601

47.

Nygaard

L. C.

Herold

D. S.

Namy

L. 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.

Nygaard

L. C.

Lunders

E. A.

(2002). Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. Journal of Memory & Cognition, 30, 583-593.

49.

Pexman

P. M.

Olineck

K. M.

(2002). Understanding irony: How do stereotypes cue speaker intent? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 245-274. doi:10.1177/0261927X02021003003

50.

Pharao

Maegaard

Møller

J. S.

Kristiansen

(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.

Platow

Brodie

(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.

Rieger

Linsenmeier

J. A.

Gygax

Garcia

Bailey

J. M.

(2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: The role of masculinity–femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 124-140. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2

53.

Rule

N. O.

(2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 129-139. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0779-2

54.

Sagar

H. A.

Schofield

J. 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.

Schafer

Carlson

Clifton

Jr. Frazier

(2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75-105. doi:10.1177/00238309000430010301

56.

Senior

Hui

Babel

(2018). Liu vs. Liu vs. Lick? Name influence on voice recall. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 1117-1146. doi:10.1017/S0142716418000267

57.

Smyth

Jacobs

Rogers

(2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32, 329-350. doi:10.1017/S0047404503323024

58.

Sulpizio

Fasoli

Antonio

Eyssel

Paladino

M. P.

Diehl

(2019). Auditory gaydar: Perception of sexual orientation based on female voice. Language and Speech. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0023830919828201

59.

Sulpizio

Fasoli

Maass

Paladino

M. P.

Vespignani

Eyssel

Bentler

(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.

Sumner

Kataoka

(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.

Sumner

Kim

S. K.

King

McGowan

K. 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.

Tracy

E. C.

Bainter

S. A.

Satariano

N. 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 Berkum

J. J.

Van den Brink

Tesink

C. M.

Kos

Hagoort

(2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 580-591. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20054

64.

Van Borsel

Vandaele

Corthals

(2013). Pitch and pitch variation in lesbian women. Journal of Voice, 27, 656e13-656e16. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.04.008

65.

Vaughn

A. A.

Teeters

S. A.

Sadler

M. S.

Cronan

S. 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.

Walker

Hay

(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.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB