Effects of Masculinized and Feminized Male Voices on Men and Women’s Distractibility and Implicit Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Men’s lower-pitched voices may serve to attract mates and/or deter same-sex rivals. If this is the case, then both men and women should be more attentive to men’s lower-pitched voices because, attending to this information may contribute to survival or confer a reproductive advantage. The current study measured men and women’s distractibility and implicit memory for sentences spoken by a masculinized (lower-pitched) and feminized (higher-pitched) male voice. Participants completed an irrelevant speech task followed by an implicit memory task to assess their memory for previously presented irrelevant speech. In the irrelevant speech task, distractibility did not differ between men and women. However, men demonstrated greater implicit memory for sentences previously spoken by the masculinized male voice, and women demonstrated greater implicit memory for sentences previously spoken by the feminized male voice. These results suggest men may have an increased sensitivity to dominance cues in other men’s voices. Reasons why men demonstrated greater implicit memory for sentences spoken by a masculinized man’s voice and why women demonstrated a trend toward greater implicit memory for sentences spoken by a feminized man’s voice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".