A person’s mental capacities, such as intellect, cannot be observed directly and so are instead inferred from indirect cues. We predicted that a person’s intellect would be conveyed most strongly through a cue closely tied to actual thinking: his or her voice. Hypothetical employers (Experiments 1–3b) and professional recruiters (Experiment 4) watched, listened to, or read job candidates’ pitches about why they should be hired. These evaluators rated a candidate as more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent when they heard a pitch rather than read it and, as a result, had a more favorable impression of the candidate and were more interested in hiring the candidate. Adding voice to written pitches, by having trained actors (Experiment 3a) or untrained adults (Experiment 3b) read them, produced the same results. Adding visual cues to audio pitches did not alter evaluations of the candidates. For conveying one’s intellect, it is important that one’s voice, quite literally, be heard.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2003). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 9873). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
BiernatM.KobrynowiczD. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557.
3.
BorkenauP.LieblerA. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553.
4.
BrooksA. W.HuangL.KearneyS. W.MurrayF. E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 4427–4431.
5.
DemoulinS.LeyensJ.PaladinoM.Rodriguez-TorresR.Rodriguez-PerezA.DovidioJ. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 71–96.
6.
DennettD. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitude toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.
8.
FarahM. J.HeberleinA. S. (2007). Personhood and neuroscience: Naturalizing or nihilating?American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 37–48.
9.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth, then competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.
10.
GesnP.IckesW. (1999). The development of meaning and contexts for empathic accuracy: Channel and sequence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 746–761.
11.
GilbertD. T.MaloneP. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.
12.
GlickP.ZionC.NelsonC. (1988). What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 178–186.
13.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
14.
GregoryS. W.WebsterS. (1996). A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1231–1240.
15.
HallJ. A.Schmid MastM. (2007). Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. Emotion, 7, 438–446.
16.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853.
17.
HaslamN.BainP.DougeL.LeeM.BastianB. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950.
18.
HaslamN.LoughnanS. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423.
19.
HughesS. M.MogilskiJ. K.HarrisonM. A. (2014). The perception and parameters of intentional voice manipulation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 107–127.
20.
IckesW. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
21.
ImadaA. S.HakelM. D. (1977). Influence of nonverbal communication and rater proximity on impressions and decisions in simulated employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 295–300.
22.
JonesB. C.FeinbergD. R.DeBruineL. M.LittleA. C.VukovicJ. (2010). A domain-specific opposite-sex bias in human preferences for manipulated voice pitch. Animal Behaviour, 79, 57–62.
23.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
24.
KantI. (2007). Critique of pure reason. London, England: Penguin. (Original work published 1781)
25.
KrugerJ.EpleyN.ParkerJ.NgZ.-W. (2005). Ego-centrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 925–936.
26.
LaplanteD.AmbadyN. (2003). Of how things are said: Voice tone, voice intensity, verbal content, and perceptions of politeness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 434–441.
27.
ListJ. A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41–71.
28.
LockeJ. (1997). An essay concerning human understanding. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1841)
29.
MacKinnonD. P.FairchildA. J.FritzM. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
30.
MehrabianA.WienerM. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109–114.
31.
MurphyN. A. (2007). Appearing smart: The impression management of intelligence, person perception accuracy, and behavior in social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 325–339.
32.
NassC.BraveS. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and enhances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
O’BrienE.EllsworthP. C. (2012). More than skin deep: Visceral states are not projected onto dissimilar others. Psychological Science, 23, 391–396.
34.
PinkerS.BloomP. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.
35.
SchroederJ.EpleyN. (2015). The humanizing voice. Manuscript in preparation.
36.
StewartG. L.DustinS. L.BarrickM. R.DarnoldT. C. (2008). Exploring the handshake in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1139–1146.
37.
TakayamaL.NassC. (2008). Driver safety and information from afar: An experimental driving simulator study of wireless vs. in-car information services. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 173–184.
38.
Van BovenL.LoewensteinG. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 1159–1168.
39.
WaytzA.HeafnerJ.EpleyN. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.
40.
WaytzA.SchroederJ.EpleyN. (2014). The lesser minds problem. In BainP. G.VaesJ.LeyensJ.-P. (Eds.), Humanness and dehumanization (pp. 49–67). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
41.
ZakiJ.BolgerN.OchsnerK. (2009). Unpacking the informational bases of empathic accuracy. Emotion, 9, 478–487.
42.
ZuckermanM.DriverR. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 67–82.
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.
