Speech Rate, Intonation, and Pitch: Investigating the Bias and Cue Effects of Vocal Confidence on Persuasion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three experiments were designed to investigate the effects and psychological mechanisms of three vocal qualities on persuasion. Experiment 1 ( N = 394) employed a 2 (elaboration: high vs. low) × 2 (vocal speed: fast vs. slow) × 2 (vocal intonation: falling vs. rising) between-participants factorial design. As predicted, vocal speed and vocal intonation influenced global perceptions of speaker confidence. Under high-elaboration, vocal confidence biased thought-favorability, which influenced attitudes. Under low-elaboration, vocal confidence directly influenced attitudes as a peripheral cue. Experiments 2 ( N = 412) and 3 ( N = 397) conceptually replicated the bias and cue effects in Experiment 1, using a 2 (elaboration: high vs. low) × 2 (vocal pitch: raised vs. lowered) between-participants factorial design. Vocal pitch influenced perceptions of speaker confidence as predicted. These studies demonstrate that changes in three vocal properties influence global perceptions of speaker confidence, influencing attitudes via different mediating processes moderated by amount of thought. Evaluation of alternative mediators in Experiments 2 and 3 failed to support these alternatives to global perceptions of speaker confidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".