more on phonation and status

[Guest guest]

Here is the research article the blog notation links to:

 

http://www.ammermanexperience.com/newsletters/mar03/

One of the earliest researchers in non-verbal communication,

anthropologist Ray Birdwistell, estimated that " 65% of social meaning "

between humans is conveyed with non-verbal cues. No one today doubts

that gestures, facial expressions, the brand of shoe or fragrance you

wear can say things that words alone will not, but researchers at Kent

State say they have found a non-verbal way to predict who will win the

most votes in an election. They analyzed a low frequency sound made by

the voice box called the phonation. The phonation sound hangs out at a

super low .5 kHz and has been compared to the tone that exists under

the notes played by a bagpipe.

 

What researchers did was take the voices of 16 presidential candidates

in eight presidential debates — every election since debates were first

televised. These audio clips were then put through spectral analysis to

see whose phonation varied the most. Previous studies by these social

scientists and others had already shown that people with lower social

status adjusted their vocal patterns to accommodate persons of higher

status. Remember, though, status isn't just about money. It may also

have to do with power, self-confidence or respect. In fact, while

studying 25 Larry King interviews from 1992 and 1993, it was found that

King's phonations changed more when he talked to (then) President Bush

and 60 Minutes host Mike Wallace, and changed less than the guest's

voice did when he talked to Vice President Quayle or actor/director

Spike Lee. This would indicate that King's social status was below that

of the first two guests and above that of the last two. When 600 people

were asked to rank the relative status of King and his guests, their

answers correlated strongly with the spectral analysis.

 

Getting back to the candidates, when their debate phonations were put

through spectral analysis, it was found that the man whose voice showed

the least variation did, in fact, win the vote. So far, the researchers

are batting .1000. We at Ammerman will be keeping an eye, uh ear, out

for them in 2004.

 

You can try this at home. The next time you listen to an interview,

close your eyes and see if you can hear vocal changes in either of the

speakers. Don't be surprised if you cannot; it can be a very subtle

thing.

 

By the way, when King interviewed Elizabeth Taylor, it was his voice

that did the most changing.

 

Dr. Stanford Gregory and Dr. Timothy Gallagher

Kent State University

Published in Social Psychology Quarterly, V65, no.3

 

 

Helen