Vocal Speed and Processing of Persuasive Messages: Curvilinear Processing Effects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most work on indicators of vocal confidence (and social influence work more broadly) examines linear relationships between variables. However, in some domains curvilinear (i.e., accelerating or decelerating) relationships may provide greater clarity in understanding human speech patterns. We review mixed past work on vocal speed as a case study, wherein faster vocal speed has been shown both to bolster and inhibit persuasion (e.g., by impairing processing). Across six total studies ( N total = 3,958), we show that faster speed initially increases perceived source confidence and message processing but eventually the increase attenuates or reverses. Correspondingly, vocal speed has a decelerating relationship to participants’ processing of persuasive messages, as revealed by two main processes: argument quality effects on attitudes, and the correspondence between thought valence and attitudes. The present work highlights the potential value of high-powered examinations of curvilinear relationships in non-verbal phenomenon for which speed is likely to play a role.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it