Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research is mixed as to whether listeners perceive higher- or lower-pitched voices as more financially trustworthy. These mixed results may be owing to variation in the degree of risk implied in the scenarios used to measure perceptions of financial trustworthiness. I tested whether the degree of risk in the type of trust game used to elicit such perceptions (i.e., potential profit/loss versus equal/unequal division of money) and/or perceptions of financial risk-taking clarifies the influence of voice pitch on perceptions of financial trustworthiness. I found that listeners preferred partners with higher- rather than lower-pitched voices, regardless of the degree of risk involved in the trust game. Listeners also sent more money to both proposers and responders with higher-pitched voices. In contrast, listeners perceived lower-pitched voices as more likely to take financial risks and as more generally trustworthy. Perceptions of financial trustworthiness were positively associated with perceptions of general trustworthiness but were not related to perceptions of financial risk-taking. These findings suggest that speakers with higher-pitched voices are perceived as relatively financially trustworthy, independently of implied or perceived financial risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".