Citation
Children's judgments of personality on the basis of voice quality

Material Information

Title:
Children's judgments of personality on the basis of voice quality
Creator:
Phillis, Judith Ann, 1942- ( Dissertant )
Dixon, James C. ( Thesis advisor )
Schumacher, Audrey S. ( Reviewer )
Ramey, Madelaine Carey ( Reviewer )
Markel, Norman N. ( Reviewer )
Pennypacker, Henry S. ( Reviewer )
Van de Piet, Vernon D. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1969
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 84 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adjectives ( jstor )
Age groups ( jstor )
Gender discrimination ( jstor )
Hypertension ( jstor )
Loudness ( jstor )
Personnel evaluation ( jstor )
Sex linked differences ( jstor )
Voice ( jstor )
Voice data ( jstor )
Voice quality ( jstor )
Child psychology ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Personality ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida, 1969.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 82-84.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022051900 ( AlephBibNum )
13447569 ( OCLC )
ACY4658 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










CHILDREN'S JUDGMENTS OF PERSONALITY

ON THE BASIS OF VOICE QUALITY
















By
JUDITH ANN PHILLIS














A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY













UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1969





























Copyright by
Judith Ann Dhillis
19 69






































To my parents













Ackn owr le dgmo nts


The author wishes to express her sincere gratitude

for the assistance and guidance so willingly provided by

Dr. James C. Dixon, Dr. Norman N. Markel, Dr. Henry S.

Pcnnypacker, Pr. Madelaine Carey Ramey, Dr. Audrey S.

Schumacher, and Dr. Vernon D. Van De Piet, the members of

her doctoral committee.

The author is particularly grateful to the following

cor.uaittee riembers:

Dr. Norman NI. Markc-l provided extensive assistance

and cncourargement with regard to both theoretical and practical

problems.

Dr. Ma&delaine Carey .eamey's advice concerning

matters of statistical design was most valuable.

Dr. James C. Dixon was a patient mentor through

four years of graduate study.

The author also gratefully acknowledges the assistance

of the following;:

;.Mrs. Ruth Duncan arranged for the use of the facilities

of the P. K. YonIg Laboratory School, and the teachers and

students were extremely cooperative.

Mrs. Will Selfrige devoted maany hours to the

pr-paration of the ex-erimental tapes.

The: facilities of the Univerit, CC::puting Center







and Mrs. Mary Lynch, consultant, made the analysis of the

results a much simpler task.

Miss Kathy Wright provided much appreciated

assistance in the tabulation of the data.

Miss Pat Powers carefully proofread the manuscript

and Mrs. Charlotte Gregory typed it professionally despite

the pressures of time.













TAU!LE OF CONTENTS


List of Tables...........


List of Figures..........


Chapter I Introduction.


Chapter II -- ethod.....


Chapter III Results....


Chapter IV Discussion..


Chapter V SuFJrary......


Appendices...............
Appcndi.-, A. .............
Appendix B.. ............


List of References.......


Page
vii


ix


1


17


27


60


71


74
75
79


82


...


..





..













~


~~














e












rr
*~











LIST OF TABLES


Table 1 Frequencies and Major Factor Loadings
of the Adjective Scales .......................

Table 2 Original and Direct Magnitude Estimation
T-scores ........... . .............. ..........

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviationr of
Percentile Placenent on IAbility Tests
for the Twelve Subject Groups.................

Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Subject
Age in Mionths for the Twelve Subject
Groups ........... ... ............ .............

Table 5 Subjects Discarded from the Twelve Subject
Groups.......... ... ...... .. .................

Table 6 Analysis of Variance of Mean Evaluative
Ratings .....................................

Table 7 Mean Evaluative Ratings of the Truelve
Voices b,' the Males and the Females and
by the Three Age Groups.... .................

Table 8 Mean Evaluative Ratings of the Six Voice
Types- by the Males and the Fenales and
by the Three Age Groups........................

Table 9 Mean IEvaluctive Ratings of the Three Voice
Quality Profiles by the Maleis and the
Females and by the Three .ge Groups............

.able 10 Analysis of Variance of Mean Dynamisn
Ratings ............. ................. ......

.able 11 Mean Dynvr-aism Ratings of the Twelve Voices
by the Malj.es and the Females and by the
Three Age Grcups ............. ..........

able 12 Significance Levels for the Newman-Keuls Tests
on the Dynatmisrn leans of the Voices of the
Same Voice Type...............................

?able 13 Mean Dynamiisn Ratings of the T.ix Voice Types
by the Males and the Females and by the
Three Age Groups ..............................


vii


Page

13


19



21



23


24


28



29



35



39


42


r


r


r


J








Table 14 Mean Dynamism Ratings of the Three Voice
Quality Profiles by the Males and the
Females and by the Three Age Groups ............ 56


viii










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure I The Sex X Voice Interaction of the
Evaluative Analysis ............... . . ..

Figure 2 The Age X Voice Interaction of the
Evaluative Analysis. ........................

Figure 3 Schematic Presentation of the Newman-
Keuls Tests on the Ordered Voice Evaluative
Me ?ins ........... .. . . ... ......*.

Figure 4 Plot of the Voice Type Means at the Two
Levels of A of the Evaluative Analysis......

Figure 5 Plot of the Voice Type Means at the Three
Levels of B of the Evaluative Analysis......

Figure 6 Plot of the Voice Quality Profile .leans at
the T\'o Levels of A of the Evaluative
Analysis ................. . ... ...... .. .

Figure 7 Plot of the Voice Quality Profile Means; at
the Three Leve z of B of the Evaluative
Analysis ....... ... ......................

Figure 8 The F'ex X Voice Interaction of the
Dynanisn. Analysis. .......... ..... .........

Figure 9 The Age X Voice Interaction of the
Dynamism Analysis. .. . ........

Figure 10 -. Schematic Presentation of the Ne.mnan-IKeuls
Tests on the Order-ed Age Group Dynamism Means.

Figure 11 Schematic Presentation of the Ne(.wman-Keuls
Tests on the Ordered Voice Type Dynamism
dMeans........ . .......... .......

Figure 12 Plot of the Voice Type M'eans at the Two Levels
of A of the Dynamism- Analysis...............

Figure 13 Plot of the Voice Tyve Means at the Three
Levels of B of the Dynam.ism, Analysis........

Figure 14 Plot of th-e oice quality Profile Means at tlhe
Two Levels of A of the Dynamism Analysis....

Figure 15 Plot of the Voice Quality Profile Means at the
Three Levels of T of the Dynamismri Analysis.,


Page

30


31



33


36


37



40



41


44


45


47



49


53


54


57


58













Chapter I


Introduction


Voice and rersonali ty

The manner in which h something is said, as well. as

actual content, has long been recognized as extremely important

in determining the message communicated. The American

cowboy showed his belief in the voracity of this statement

with the phrase, "Smile when you say that, Partner." Vocal

variations, as w.:ell as gestural and facial ones, can also be

employed to modify communicated messages. In addition, to

the astute listener, i.nfr:oration .which is not necessarily

communicated intentionally is ava,'.ilable from _araling:iJtic

aspects of the voice. Thus, by his manner of p.ea.kl!g- a

lecturer rnay well infoc'r. his audience of his present mooc

and geneJral personality characteristics as ul.l as the topic

on which he is speaking.

Despite the general agreen!- nt that the voice

expresses both transient ard relatively permanent states of

the individual, it wcs not until capir's article, "Speech

as a Personality Trait'; (1927) appeared that systematic

research in the area Ibearn. Classic studie.. in the area

are these of Pear (1931) and Allpcrt and Cantril (AUport

and Cantril 1934; C'i trial and Allp.ort, 1935). Findings







were that age, sex and total personality s. tches could be

reliably matched with voices by the judges, In genera].,

however, in matching many aspects of personal ty with voices

the inter-judge reliability was much higher than the validity.

This finding has been confirmed by recent research (Kramer,

1964). Kramer (1964) argues that the consistently high

reliability in such judgments is itself a ty.e of validity,

and that the lack of agreement with criter.cion personality

measures should cast doubt on the validity of these measures

rather than on the validity of the voice as an indicator

of individual differences.

In addition to the- need for validity in the

criterion measures of personality employed, Kramer (19S3)

suggests that the personalities of judges is a variable

which should b. investigated in voice and personality

studies. In view of the fact that "..,certain basic

personality differences are a function of biological sex,..

Markel and ,oblin (1965) investigated the effects of this

variable, Differences in personality judgmrents were obtained

on the evaluative dimension of a semantic differential as a

function of sex-of-judge. These differences occurred as a

function of content variations. In the Markel and Roblin study

all voice samples were provided by the same speaker. Employing

this procedure, no sex differences ; ere found -with regard to

the activity and potency dimensions.

Another critical factor in these studies is the

specification of the voices remployed. Market (1969 a)suggests

the use of the terms "structural" and functional" to describe







the methods employed in analyzing speech. lIe notes that

the functional approach consists of various types of rating

techniques in which personality judgments a::e made directly

by judges. These studies have been reviewed by Kramor (1963).

The structural methods are. those which employ some technique to

quantify the speech without attempting to make judgments

about the speaker. Studies employing the latter methods have

been reviewed by Mahl and Schu!ze (1964). Dittmian and "'ynne

(1961), in an attempt to develop a structural methodology,

employed the typical idiographic approach of the linguist

and were unable to obtain reliable ratings of paralinguistic

phenomena. Utilizing a nomothetic approach (comparing the

individual to group rather than focusing on individual

variations through time) Markel (1965) obtained high inter-

judge reliability in the coding of three aspects of

paralinguistic cr non-phonmnic phenomena: pitch, loudness

and tempo.


Children as Judges in Voice and Personality Studies

Kramer (1964) has noted that while there has been

much theorizing about the importance of develoonental variables

in the areaoE speech and personality, few empirical studies

have been conducted. The primary contention in the area has

been that young children ar-e more sensitive to nonverbal

vocal cues than are adults. Dimitrovsky (1964) found sex

and age differences in children's ability to judge emotions

on the basis of voice. In general, however, older children

and femi.ales were more accurate in their judgments. Gates (1927)






in an earlier study, found that rore intelligent and older

children correctly identified the intended emotions of

speakers more frequently. Goodenough's (1957) findings that

an interest in ot-her people is an extremely critical sex--typed

behavior forgirls while boys are encouraged to develop an

interest in objects is important in this regard. Especially

relevant in predicting differential accuracy in judging

personality from the voice is the finding that girls, more

than boys, are encouraged to attend to the expressive

behavior of others and utilize the information obtained

in tha manipulation of people. Thus, particularly when

children are employed as judges, the sex and age of judges

are important variables in the area of voice and personality.


The Voice Quality Profile

MIarke.'s develomment of the Voice Qualitv Profile

(VQP) resulted from his attempts to anE3yze voice qualities

structurally rather than functionally. The advanLage of such

an approach is that the structural aspects of voice quality

can then be related to a variety of both transient and

relatively permanent personality characteristics. As

mentioned above, the voice qualities on which reliability of

ratings has been established are pitch, loudness and tempo.

In order to determine the VOP of a particular speaker, a

group of judges rates one or several voice samples of the

individualin- terms of these three dimensions. The mean of

all ratings obtained on a dimension is the score of that

dimension. The scores for all individual voices rated by






this techniqueare then converted to T-scores, one distribution

of T-scorer; for each dimension. Three profile groups are

then established and each individual is assigned to one on

the basis of the highest T-score obtained. The three VQP

groups are Peak-Pitch (P-P) ; Peak-Loudness (P-L) and Peak-T:c'po

(P-T).

With this technique, the VQP's of psychiatric

patients (Markel, 1969a) and college students (Costanzo,

Markel, and Costanzo, 1969; Vargas, 1968) have been obtained,

Raters have always been graduate or undergraduate university

students. The VQP has been related to ':MPI profiles by

ilarkel (1969a) and to perceived crotion by Costanrzo, Marke.

and Costanzo (1969). Vargas (1963) has related the VOP

to the frequencyi of positive cxperiencing and behaving, the

California Personality Inventory, the T'ennc.-see elf[--Conce:t

Scale, FIRO-L, self ratings of early childhood experiences,

Jourard's Self-Disclosure Questionnaire and judge-rated

self-disclosure. Considering the pattern which emerges from

all three studies, Vargas (1968) hypothesized a two dimensional

trait system to describe the personality differences among

the three VQP groups.

The mean ;:MPI profiles ('-arkel, 1969a) of the

three VQP groups indicate that P-P voices are associated with

personality descriptions which include such adjectives as

"withdrawn" and "introverted." Psychiatric patients with

the P-P VQP are likely to have a poor Tprocnosis and be diagnosed

as psvchotic. The P-L VOP among psychiatric patients is





6

indicative of a good prognosis and a diagnosis of depression

or psychoneurosis. Personality descriptions of such people

would likely include such adjectives as immaturee" and

"demanding." The P-T VQP is associated with an .MMPI profile

within normal limits, and thus, on the basi:f of the Il--PI

study, a personality description of healthy or average is

suggested. The Costanzo, Markel and Costanzo (1969) study

indicates that among college students P--P voices are more

often associated with grief, P-L with anger or contempt and

P-T with indifference regardless of the emotion intended by

the speaker. This appears to support Markel's findings

(1969a), if one considers that depression is often viewed as

a means of dealing with anger and a grieving person is

characteristically withdrawn. Notice that these are the

findings of the two studies for the P-L and P-P voices,

respectively. The relationship between indifference and

normalacv is less easily understood; however, this may

merely indicate that none of the other emotions was clearly

portrayed. Essentially Vargas' (1968) study is in agreement

with the previous two. lie found that speakers whose VP

was P-T were significantly higher than the P-P and P--L

speakers inself--disclosure, the reported frequency of

positive experiencing and behaving and the number of positive

early childhood experiences reported. All of these variables

are associated with healthy, adjusted people. The Vargas

study also indicates that the P-L VOP is associated with

speakers who feel inadequate and dissatisfied and who are

maladjusted in interpersonal relationships according to various





7

scales of the Tennessee Self Concept fcalc. Scores on FIRO-B3

indicate that the P-L VQP among college males is charectcristic

of people who wish to control others but w-ho are unwilling

to give in return. FIRO-B scores also indicate significant

differences between the D-P speakers and the P--L and P-T speakers

in that the latter two groups seek to gain control. in

interpersonal relationships.

Thus, it appears that a consistent pattern has

emerged from studies investigating personality and the VQ'0.

The following is a summary of the behavioral correlates of

the three structurally defined VOP's-

(1) P--P withdra,.n and reserved but capable
of maintaining mutuc.ll rewarding inter-
personal relationships with other people

(2) P-L *- angry, demanding and seeking to
control others but not giving in inter--
personal relationships

(3) P-T outgoing and seeking to manipulate
others but also will ing to give to others
and able to maintain mutually rewarding
relationships with them.


Selection of the RPating Technicue

The problem of choosing a rating technique is a

particularly difficult one when children are to be the

raters. They are notorious for the unreliability of their

ratings as well as for their tendency to adopt favorite

response styles regardless of the stimulus properties to be

judged. It is, of course, possible to control for such

difficulties by employing either a ranking or a paired-

comr.orisons! method. However, neither of these approaches

lends itself well to situations such as the present one,







where the to-be- raLrte stimuli are transi.-.nt and where it is

impossible for the child to have more thap one stimulus

before him at a time. Although this is a less serious

drawback for the paired-comparisons approach, where only

two stimuli are considered at once, the time required to

obtain paired-comparison data for twelve stimuli would be

prohibitive in a situation such as the present one where

ratings on two dimensions are required.


The Semantic Differential

The Senantic Differential (Osgood, Suci and

Tannenbaum, 1957) is a rating technique which provides

simultaneous ratings on several dimensions of stimuli.

The instrument was developed and tested extensively by

Osgood et.al. as a technique to be employedi3 in the measurement

of connotative meaning. Semantic differential studies

involve obtaining, from a number of subjects, ratings of

several concepts or stimuli on a series of bipolar adjective

scales. The consistently relevant dimensions of meaning

have been determined by means of factor analyses which

have been computed on the intercorrelations of the adjective

scales. In the typical semantic differential study, the

intercorrelations are calculated across stimuli and subjects.

Such studies have consistently found that most of the common

variance is accounted for by three dimensions or factors:

evaluative (50% 75%), potency (25%--30) and activity

(20%-25%) (Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum, 1957). Typical

evaluative scales are good-bad and friendly-unfriendly;






strong-weak and hard-soft are typical potency scales, and

the activity dimension consists of scales such as fast-sl.ow

and active-passive.

Previous experiments have employed the semantic

differential to obtain personality ratings on the basis of

voice from adult judges (Markel, Meisels, and lHouck, 1964;

Markel and Roblin, 1965). Markel, Meisels, and Houck (1964)

found that on the basis of voice alone schizophrenics were

judged more potent than nonschizophrenics. Speakers whom

the judges perceived as schizophrenic wecre judged more

active than those perceived as nonschizophrenic. The authors

interpret the failure to obtain differences on the evaluative

dimension of the semantic differenital as attributable to the

constant content enploy',d by all speakers and to the similarity

of voice set. They agree w.itn Trager (1958) in defining

voice set as those aspects of the voice attributable to

societal group, sex, age, state of health and location.

Markel and Roblin (1965) obtained differences on the evaluative

dimension, but not on the activity and potency dimensions

when judges were instructed to rate the personality of one

speaker in three different content conditions, The sex-of-

judge was also found to have a significant effect. The

authors concluded that the evaluative dimension reflects a

general attitude toward the speaker which results from the

relationship between his voice set and what he says. The

significance of sex-of-judge was attributed to sex differences

in responding to inconsistency between voice set and content.






Children as subjects

Studies which have investigated the dimensions of

meaning in children of various ages support the contention

that it is a fairly consistent variable (Small, 1950;

Brandwin, 1965; Lilly, 1965; Darnard, 3966; Di Vesta, 1966).

It has been noted in several studies, however, that the

activity and potency dimensions tend to coalesce when children

are employed as raters (Small, 1958; Brandwin, 1965; Barnard,

1966). Maltz (1963) concluded that the meaning of concepts

to children becomes stable sometime before the fourth grade

in school is reached. Donahoe (1961) investigated the stability

of the three dincnsions separately and concluded that

ratings with respect to acti.\ ity stabilize before, or during,

the first grade in school; evaluative ratings stabilize

prior to the third aznd pcLtency ratings between the third, and

sj::th years in school. However, some caution must be employedd

in interpreting these latter two studies, since both assumed

that the factor loadings of the scales found with adult

subjects would also be obtained with children used as subjects.

The findings of Di Vesta and Dick (1966) with respect to

the reliability of the semantic differential at different

age levels do seem to indicate that a general increase in

the stability of children's semantic differential ratings

occurs between the third and fourth grades. They found

"...a definite increase in reliability of ratings made on

the semantic differential between the third and fourth

grades." Di Vesta and Dick conclude that if twenty children

are employed in the rating procedure, the reliability of the







concept scores obtained should be satisfactory. They

also report that, "All correlations are sufficiently high to

indicate the functional utility of separate factor scores,

based on only two scales for research purposes."

As is typical in studies in which the semantic

differential is used to obtain ratings, it was necessary to

consider several variables in choosing the scales for the

present study. The criteria employed in selecting scales

were as follows:

(1) All scales included were selected on the
basis of their relevance to making ratings
of the personalities of nale speakers.

(2) The scales employed were constructed of
adjectives with which children could be
reasonably expected to be familiar.

(3) Tho scales were s-elected in a manner
which assuied that they loaded consistently
on the dinmenision which they were selected
to represent.

With respect to the third criterion, it was first necessary

to determine which dimensions cf meaning were relevant to

the present study. As was mentioned previously, in most

semantic differential studies, the first factor or dimensions

to emerge have been evaluative, potency, and activity.

Later factors have been given such names as oriented activity,

stability, receptivity, pointedness, and novelty. It has

already been noted that when children are employed as

subjects in semantic differential studies the activity and

potency dimensions merge into one second dimension which

has frequently. boon labeled dynamism. Osgood, Suci, and

Tannoinbaum (1957, pp. 73--74) observe that the activity and





12


potency factors also coalesce into a dynarmism factor when

judgments are limited to sociopolitical concepts, that is,

people and policies. Since the present study required

children to make ju-dgc'-ens of people exclusively, it was

concluded that evaluative and dynamism were the most critical

dimensions.

Scales were therefore selected for inclusion in

the present study if, in previous studies, they had been

found to load consistently on either the evaluative or the

dynamism factors and to have small loadings on all other

factors. IP order to assure that the children would be

familiar with all adjectives so selected, the word frequencies

established by Thorndike and Lorge (1944) were utilized.

Thorndike and Lorge recommend that words as frequent as

twenty per million be taught to fourth graders, thus children

of this age can be expected to be familiar with words of

this, or greater, frequency. Table 1 lists the six pairs

of bipolar adjectives employed in the present study as wiell

as the frequency per million words of the selected adjectives

according to the Thorndike and Lorge Word List and the major

factor loadings of the scales according to previous studies

which employed children as subjects.


Statement of the Problem

The purpose of the present study was to test

directly the hypotheses emerging form the work with the

VQP. It appears that the VQP groups which have been defined

by a structural methodology can also be defined in functional











2,-4



0
rHl r-v t0 r- * *




43 C) 4 J E C
E) > > HQ -, >-





S4) ,-) 4 a a
tr 0 C
U
0

UC)
C > 4J > U
,- > 0 40 0 0 4J C
0 r -i r 0) H 0 0-
S0 0 0 > 4 *rl > 0
0 0 *1 > > I rO 4 *rl 0O





3 0 0 4 0
': O U K O


< ; 00








C0 C 4
4*- 1 C* * C
- * 4




l o ro > o
0 10 1


r-4.










4' 0 00
4-' 0 * C 0 C CC
0 r- *-, *n-r 4-qJ

4 Q 00
0 Oi C O O O ,















0 44
oi H.-,.'" -4 --
0 -, rJ 0 0 -, 0 0
00 00 10 0












ror-


-C)P
3O O

I 1- C I



C) + + c
"J .0 0 0 o C, o a
= ci- C. 0 0 1 L 0 0 !-







0 0 0 C












V.O 0
0 H *H I H

L C I9 C CI _
1o C I U
I:I C I C C








4 0 0( 0(
Hrj 0 M '
0 0 C

0 r o

or: r







terms. Stated simply, if judges were asked to rate the

personalities of speakers in each of the three VQP groups

on the basis of voice quality alone, the personality

descriptions obtained would be expected to differentiate

among the three VQP groups by means of two behavioral or

personality dimensions. The first dimension might be

thought of as reflecting "aggressiveness" and includes those

adjectives in the first phrase of the descriptions of

personality correlates of the three VQC's. The second

dimension includes those adjectives in the second portion

of the descriptions of personality correlates of the

three VQP's and might be summarized as "friendliness."

It was also believed that investigating the effects

of low scores, as well as peak scores on the three qualities,

would contribute significantly to an understanding of the

relationship between voice and personality. Therefore,

this variable was included in the design of the present

study. In order to obtain additional information on the

effects of individual differences among the judges, which

Kramer has suggested as a critical variable, males and

females at three age levels were employed as raters in the

present study.

It should he noted that the evaluative and dynamism

factors of the semantic differential are quite similar to

th', two dimensions emerging form the studies of personality

and VQP. For example, dimension 1 was characterized by

adjectives such as "reserved" and "withdrawn" at one pole

and "dc-mandinc," "control ing," and "outgoing" at the other pole,






These adjectives appear to --epresent the meanings attached

to the two poles of the dynamism dimension. Dimension 2

of the VQP personality descriptions included the ability to

give and receive pleasure in relationships with people at

one pole and dissatisfaction with human relationships at the

other pole. It seems that ratings of people at the poles

of dimension 2 would be represented by the poles of the

evaluative dimension. For example, friendly unfriendly

is a frequent evaluative scale and in the discussion of

dimension 2 it was referred to as a friendliness dimension.

On the basis of previous studies which investigated

the relationship between personality and the VQP, the

following hypotheses were framed and tested in the present

study:

(1) Speakers rated as HT and TIP on VQP
will be rated as more positively valued
by judges rating personality than speakers
rated as !IL on VQP.

(2) Speakers rated as IIT and HL on V(OP will
be rated as more dynamic by judges rating
personality than speakers rated as HP on
VQP.

(3) Speakers whose VOP's are similar will
also receive similar ratings on both the
evaluative and the dynam'isr dimensions.

The results of the Dimitrovsky (1964) and Gates

(1927) studies indicate that the above hypotheses are more

]ikely to be confirmed among the female and the older

subjects. Despite the empirical findings, however, the

contention that younger children discriminate anong nonver)bal

vocal cues better than do older children continues to

survive. One reason for this is the fact that the methods

employed to obtain th chiJdre-n's ratings were not extensively





16

documented for the age groups involved. It was one of the

purposes of this study to investigate the effects of sex

and age in judging personality from the voice.













Chapter II


llethod


The Voices

The stimulus voices were obtained from raw data

previously collected by Markel (19G9a). In this study, each

of six raters judged the pitch, loudness and tempo of seventy-

eight voice samples twice. The original voice samples were

obtained from psychiatric patients who were instructed to

read the following sentence, "Many of the reports received

last week showed a large increase in earnings.' On the

basis of these ratings, Markel was thz'n able to divide the

initial seventy-eight subjects into three V)P groups: P-P.

P-L, and P-T. Each voice was assigned to the profile groupv

which represented the voice quality for which the highest

T--score had been obtained. These three groups differed

significantly from each other both in terms of VQP and MIIPI

profile.

A possible criticism of Markel's approach is that

it fails to evaluate the effects of extreme ratings on the

three qualities. That is, a voice nay be defined as "peak"

on a quality yet obtain a relatively low absolute rating on

that particular quality. In addition, the possible correlates

of low ratings on the voice qualities are not evaluated.

These considerations, and the need to exploree the effects of

17







voice qualities with a smaller number of stimulus voices,

led to the decision to select the voices for this study

in the following manner: two high and two low voices for

each quality were included. In order to be classified as

high on quality A, a voice was required to obtain a T-score

at least 1.5 standard deviations above the mean (T-score = 65)

on quality A and between plus and minus 1.0 standard deviations

(T-score = 40 60) on qualities B and C. The same requirements

were employed in establishing other high and low stimulus

voices.

In selecting the twelve voices from the original

seventy-eight, an attempt w;as also made to match the high

and low voices for a particular quality with respect to

ratings onther other two qualities. That is, the two High

Pitch (hP) voices were watchedd with the two Low Pitch (L')

voices wiLh respect to loudness and tempo. Since the

limited samDle from which the twelve voices were chosen made

this procedure difficult, the voices were divided into two

sets, with the voices which were more closely matched being

included in Set I. Market (1969h), in an unpublished study,

also obtained pitch, loudness and tempo ratings using a

direct magnitude estimation technique. The correlations

between the original and D.M.E. T-scores are above .85

for all three voice qualities. Table 2 presents the pitch,

loudness, and tempo T--scores of the two sets of six voices

which were obtained in the two rating conditions.




















TA-3LE 2


Original and Direct Magnitude Estit-iation T--scores


Voice Set
Type Uumrber


Original T-scores


Pitch Loudness


Temno


D.P.E. T-score -
Pitch L.oudness T!-n n


46.09 49.24
50.69 47.47

49.76 54.55
42.42 48.35

72.74 56.33
35.06 50.2.3

70.90 41.26
33.22 40.38

47.00 70.50
41.49 35.06

51.60 67.84
53.44 34.18


67.41
38.04

66.24
39.51.

47.05
40.78

63.49
39.51

59.92
54.88

57.62
53.70


49.52 56.78
42.06 50.83

47.25 54.49
40.77 46.71

73.16 56.78
41.10 55.41

78.67 42.58
39.80 39.92

45.31 75.10
41.10 37.01

50.49 65.48
56.32 36.63


72.55
32.97

66.76
32.97

47.45
39.73

44.55
48.42

57.11
59.03

51.32
52.28


------U--~YI-~----I-I ~)---~--mU-~----~-C--- ----~- ------~






Subjects

Subjects for this study were students from the

University of Florida Laboratory School. Approximately

50% of the children enrolled in the school are children of

professors at the University of Florida. The remainder of

the students are drawn from the city of Gaincsville and

other communities in Alachua County. The professional groups

are highly represented in the parents of the children which

may account for the fact that, as a group, the children

in the Laboratory School score higher on various ability

tests than other children in the state.

Ability test scores were obtained from the school

records in order to balance the experimental groups with

respect to this variable. Tn addition, birthdates were

obtained for all subjects. Six of the experimental groups

made judgments on the evaluative scale and six of them

made dynamism ratings. The elementary school groups, t1.7o

groups of males (ELM) and two groups of females (ELF), ,were

composed of fourth and fifth graders; eighth and ninth

graders were sampled to obtain the junior high males (JRM)

and the junior high females (JRF); and eleventh and twelfth

grade males and females were sampled to obtain the senior

high males (SRH) and females (SRF).

Ability test mean percentile scores and standard

deviations are presented in Table 3. The percentiles were

based on national norms of the California Test of Mental

Maturity for the fourth, fifth and eight grades and of the

School and College Abilities Test for the ninth, eleventh






















TABLE 3


Iieans and Standard Deviations of
Percentile Placement on Ability Tests
for the Twelve Pubject Groups


Evaluative Dynam sm
Moan N SD Nean N SD

ELi 73,55 20 15.29 71.38 16 21.87

ELF 69.75 20 2..22 77.29 17 11.83

JRPI 72.53 37 18.11 75.60 20 20.77

JRF 73.26 19 27.02 71.15 20 24.40

SRM 71.06 18 20,32 69.10 20 26.94

SRF 66.26 19 26.48 69.73 15 18.46




22

and twelfth grades. Table 4, presents the means and standard

deviations of the ages of the twelve subject groups. Tables

3 and 4 present data only on subjects actually employed

in the analysis, Ability test scores were not available

for all subjects and age data was not available for one

subject in the SRF group. Thus, in tables 3 and 4 the N

of several groups is less than twenty, Table 5 presents

the data :with regard to discarded subjects in each of the

twelve subject groups. As can be seen from the table,

subjects were discarded from each of the groups on the

basis of ability test percentile scores in order to equate

the groups with respect to this variable.


Procedur-

The semantic differential was aTdninisterod to a1.

children in one of their regular classrooms during the

school day. There were two classrooms for each grade, with

approximately thirty students in each class. One section

of each grade rated all twelve voices on the three evaluative

scales; the remaining section rated the twelve voices on

the three dynamism scales. This approach limited the number

of ratings whj ch any individual subject ma-de to thirty-six:

and limited the possible effects of horeodom on the ratings.

In addition, through such a procedure, the independence of

evaluative and dynamism ratings was assured.

The form of the semantic differential employed

required the children to rate all twelve voices on one scale

before beginnin'i_ the ratings on another. It was felt that
























TABLE 4


Means and Standard Deviations of
Subject Age in Months for the
Twelve Subject Groups


Evaluat-v


Evaluative
Mean N

125.10 20 7

124.50 20 5

172.80 20 6

174.75 20 8

208.56 20 8

207.50 20 6


ELM

ELF

3RM

JRF

S RM.

SRF P


C --' I-----ynamis r--- -~- ~-----~- --


SD

,49

.43

.46

.62

.10

.53


Mean

124.9

124.2

174.6

173.9

209.7

210.0


Dy na IS i s
N

5 20

5 20

0 20

0 20

5 20

5 19


SD

7.24

6.43

7..13

7.89

7.07

7.47


---------------


- -------- --- ~YII- ---------~
















CN C CM(N C N CD C
C-N


000C 0 00 [
CN CN CNi CN CN
1H


U)
C-'







4 -1







i 0




n C)
U) C-1
rti H


- ,r MI -- I L 'l C N N


co co L co chi r


NN NN 5'-^f



M^ ite C(-r


m -4 on ,-4 Li cO
k'.


<4 CIrt o t C )





N ( teN
( M (N I *-("I CN (


mi i m m v) c) '3 c: rf() m () VI m c')
k H


0
--I
E- "
OO
o 0


*^H
O
SU)





0
4 O 1

0
C




kOH
C 0.

C)


r(
Of
u- H






this approach would minimize any "halo effects" in the

ratings and would allow the children to form and maintain

the desired set in making the ratings. All instructions

and the twelve stimulus voices were recorded on a tape prior

to the experimental sessions to approximate identical

conditions in all groups. The instructions wore modified

frcm those employed by M-arkel and Mam (1960).

Twelve tapes were recorded in all. Each began

with a "dubbed" recording of the instructions and was

followed by three different, random orders of the twelve

stimulus voices. Approximately ten seconds elapsed between

the voices in each set of twelve in order to allow time for

the voice to be rated. A different random order of the

voices was constructed for each of the thirty-six< experimental

presentations of the voices by reference to a table of random

numbers.

Another aspect of the presentation in which orderinci

effects 'were important was the inter- and intra.-scale

ordering. Since the three evaluative scales and the three

dynamiism scales were each presented to six groups of

children, it w,-is possible to present each of the six possible

ordcrings of the scales to one of the six groups. To counter-

balance with respect to intr.a--scale ordering, three groups

made the evaluative and dynamism ratirngs with the positive

pole of the- biCoiar scales presented on the left. Three of

the six;: roups making each type of rating rated the voices on

bipolar scales on which the positive Dole was printed on

the right.






Data An,'.- lvsis

Numerical values of 1-7 were assigned to the seven

categories of the six scales. The dynamic and positively

valued poles of the scales were assigned the numerical

value of one and the opposite poles were assigned the

numerical value of 7. The means of the ratings of the

twelve voices on the three scales were then computed for

each subject. This resulted in the twelve scores obtained

for each subject. One exception to this procedure was

due to the inadvertent commission of the LPT2 voice among the

voices rated on the large-small scale by the ninth grade.

becausee of this oversight, the LP) mean was computed from

only two scales for those ninth graders making ratings on

the dynamisn scales.

The data were analyzed in two analyses of variance.

Each analysis was" conducted as a 2 x 3 x. -2 ro.ca td

measurements design with repeated measurVements ov.;r the

third factor. This design is discussed by liner (1962,

337-347). The two levels of factor A were sex-of-judge, the

three levels of factor B were the three age levels (EL, JR,

and SR) and the twelve levels of factor C were the twelve

voices.


/2G













Chapter III


Results


Eval.uative Results

Table 6 presents the results of the analysis of

variance of the evaluative ratings. As can be seen from

the table, P tests on the C main effect and the AC and ,3C

interactions '.ire significant, while tes-ts en other main

effects and interactions were .ot. These findings indicate

that the subjects employed in the present sLtu-dy discrimir:nated

among the twvelvec voices on the evaluative dicnmnsion.

Further, che pattern of these di scrin-inations v.-:ied with

both the sex and age of the rater.

Table 7 presents the mean ratings of the twelve

voices by the three age groups and by the males and females.

The AC means are plotted in Figure 1 and the BC .me-ns are

plotted in l'igrure 2. As can be seen in both figures;, the

differences.. t :t'-/c ratinqg of voices of the sarrm. type

were large. P1 so, contrary to ti. findings expected,

were the highly positive ratings of the 1iL voices.

This finding is directly contradictory of hypothesis

1. The initial prediction was that i;H and PP sneakers

would ho rated las more uoositively val.'.ed than "L spek-rs.

Because of this, the planned comr.-arison of the i'T, ,TP

and HL voices ':.'as not corpoleted- The u.ll hvyothesis,

27























TABLE 6


Analysis of Variance of ean-L Eva] ua- j vre atingr



Source lMean S quarter df P


Sex (A) .429 1 .197
Age ()) 1.475 2 .680
AB .376 2 .173
ErBr r B etw een 2.170 114
Voices (C) 44.096 11 46.281**
AC 1.761 11 1,848*
BC 3.885 22 4.078**
ABC 1.226 2?2 .2P6
rror Within .953 1254

signi ficant at .01
*'*s'igni ticant at. .01



















CO a)O C) CO





N ~ N 0 ,1



S* " C
u r- r% CO 0 N1
r- C 0" 0 fD





C, L L.) LA L
Q * *r-





) r- *- < I r



C O) C'i V)



0 (Nj C ,- C) C' cL
4 C Lq l H -





EI m m o- c m


5 C)

rl o C C| O LCO
.r u- * . .


O> cm l cI C-






,--4 E
H * -
CA)
*H C ci c-i c Hl r
-- H H o on to L-















c (N *. .
ci c- in C N Ci
H Ci C) Li aC Cl






li CI> rC N C| 0






S * . .
ci 0e i 0 O OA


-I -L Q m r- r *
0 '- C) 0


C) C^ L) co -'- -


19 H m 7 m i m









'-*~; I rn o n (^ ~ ~ L'! m rsi m











6.00
Negative ly
Valued







5.00


0-0 Level 1 of A (Males)
O---0 Level 2 of A (Females)


O

/ '

/
I \


'N;
I
3.00 \


0


Positi. velv
Valuedc


I I I I I I I I I I
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 ?

P 1, Ed L L 14i Y Y

The Twelve Voices

Figure 1

The Sex X Voice Interaction
of the Evaluative Analysis










6.00
Negatively
Valued






5.00





Q


4.0C --+-'(--


O--C- Level 1-of B (EL)
0----. Level 2 -of B (JR)
O--oLevel 3-of B (SR)


I .


VI
'* I



II
1


3.00


Positively
Valued
2.00
I S i i >i
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2


1-3 P


1 2


The Twelve Voices

Figure 2

The Age X Voice Interaction
of the Evaluative Analysis


I I
1 2


LL KHT L Y







HO: (Hi + H-2 + HTI + HT2) -2 (HL1 + HL2) > 0, would

obviously be retained at all levels of A and B.

Inspection of Figure 1 indicates that the sex by

voice interaction was primarily a function of differences

between the males and females in the ratings of the high

and low loudness voices. Figure 2 indicates that the age

by voice interaction also reflected differences in the

ratings of the loudness voices and the iHP and LT ratings

as well. Figures 1 and 2 also show that the females and

the elementary group tended to make the most extreme ratings

of the HL and LL voices.

The Newman-Keuls technique (Winer, 1962; 309-330)

was used to test differences among the ordered voice means

at the two levels of A and three levels of B. These te:ts

were conducted in order to evaluate hypothesis 3 which was

that voicesof similar voice type would also receive similar

evaluative and dynamism ratings. The results of these

tests are presented schematically in Figure 3. Voice

means, which are underlined by common lines in this figure,

were not found to be significantly different at the alpha

level indicated. However, because differences among voices

of the samevoice type were obtained, it is difficult to

interpret differences between voices of diff-rent voice
4--
types. Ascan be seen from Figure 3, of the thirty comparisons

made between voices of the same type, all but three were

significant at tihe .03 level. Thus, with respect to

evaluative ratings hypothesis 3 must be rejected.

In order to evaluate the effect of voice type,















0


0



e,



*t *



o.





4-) C)
u; 0d
I 0



"r-




4 0>




0 0 rH


t04 u: >
Srj
C)














4-'


H U
U0

1

C 0 bJ


0 '. *





C)c
-
0 C











., G
*^rl -


'-4


HQ
0



O
0

CN <

C',
C --

C0


He
0


~-4 II
0


H3 C)
'2)
C):2




('3c'
H
'- c

:1 o\
C)(*


a*

4-11
0



,-1
C) ^
a) 4 1
17-1


H4




rn1
0




C)

C) CU







despite thelarge differences between voices of the same

type, the voice type means were calculated. Table 8 presents

the voice type means for the males and females and for the

three age groups. Figure 4 is a plot of the voice type

means at the two levels of A; and the voice type means at the

three levels of B are presented in Figure 5. Figure 4

shows that the evaluative ratings of both the males and the

females discriminated most between the HL and the LL voice

types. Both sexes rated HL voices toward the positive pole

of the evaluative dimension and LL voices toward the negative

pole. With regard to both the HL and the LL voice types,

the ratings of the females were more extreme than those of

the males. Differences between the high and low pitch and

the high andlow tempo voice types were much smaller, as

were the differences between the male and female ratings

of these four voice types.

As can be seen in Figure 5, the evaluative ratings

of the six voice types display a clear developmental trend.

In general, the EL age group discriminated most among the

voice types, while the SR age group discriminated least.

In all cases, the ratings of the JR age group fell between

those of the EL and SR age groups. Figure 5 also shows

that while the EL age group attached a negative evaluation

to LP and LT speakers and a positive evaluation to HP

speakers, just the reverse was true of the SR age group.

Because the evaluative analysis so clearly showed

that the HT and HP voices were not more positively valued

than the HL voices as originally hypothesized, an examination












0
O

EcO





0
.CO


H









Lo
E-e O





U )
cV 0 r



0
.0
C-





CU *
'r

.E- 0







0- 4
Sr-








S,4- .

SX;
*ri U


I, 0

Er

a)
i-4















x C
3 E-








4 4





S0


* r-
A.

















o 4
0 C)










C >








-P
o A



C)















Q)


0 iYl









o a\

*











Lo 01
CN in
*



































o0 o




*



f) )


rn -









C) r
1 E
f (1)
n^f


CO CN N~
o 0 CO
coa co
.







C r-i 0
0 0 0













\o un u












H








L' ri co
0oN
') co c'








* .
n n




>-C H H




E *H -lH

-1 3 C)



4 CQ n









c----o level 1 of A (males)
o----o level 2 of A (females)


6.00
negatively
va I ued








5.00










4.00


I
I


3.0 0






positively
va Led


2.00


I i"


The Six Voice Types


Figure 4

Plot of the Voice Type Means
at the Two Levels of A
of the Evaluative Analysis


\
/
/


I' T


~_~1~1___1_~__









6.00
Negatively
Valued


5.00








4.00-


0--0 Level 1 of B (EL)
0----0 Level 2 of B (JR)
C--- Level 3 of B (SR)


A
/ \


\ !
I


3.00


Positively
Valued

2.00


i' HP


The Six Voice Types


Figure 5

Plot of the Voice Trype ieans
at the Three Levels of B
of the Evaluative Analysis


I

:1







of the voices in terms of voice quality profile (VQP) was

made. Table 2 above shows that four voices of each VQP were

included in the present study. The voices included in each

profile group were as follows: P-P: HIP, UIP2, LL2 and LTI;

P-L: LPI, HIL1, !!L2, LT2; P--T: LP2, LLj, lHT1 and lIT2.

Table 9 presents the mean evaluative ratings of the three

VQP's made bythe three age groups and by the males and

females. Figure 6 is a plot of the VQP means at the two

levels of A. The VQP means at the three levels of B are

presented in Figure 7. Figures 6 and 7 show that, although

differencesamong the VQP's were not large, among the males

and the older children there was a tendency for the P-L

profile voices to receive negative ratings. These same

subject groups also tended to rate the P-T voices toward the

positive pole of the evaluative dimension.


Dynamism Results

Table 10 presents the results of the analysis of

variance of the dynamism ratings. As can be seen from the

table, F tests on the B and C main effects and the AC and PC

interactions were significant. These findings indicate that

the pattern of discrimination among the voices on the basis

of the dynamism dimension varied with both the age and

sex of the rater.

Table 11 presents the means obtained from ratings

of the twelve voices made by the three age groups and the

males and females. The AC means are plotted in Figure S and

the BC means are plotted in Figure 9. The figures show that



















to
10

r(



0






0
> 4)



,l








OEO
C)











4-)
>1
-Q





4-
00








r-;
r


O E-
0 c

CO
0 -




C)






S,C;
-H r
-H







4-i








C)

'eX
-p +


0


C; r- o

*o
Er r 0
4 mm

C,










C)

UC)


0-i 0




C-C


C.






E4
C)







0










r -











; C-
^-1 0 .
C-a


CO 0 0)



















0 0 0
Ol Ca) Co








0'r. r-i

r4- Q






















C'N Li
O O
*











4J

C) 0 0

ot cq mr









6.00
Negatively
Valued


0--- Level 1 of A (Males)
0----0 Level 2 of B (Females)


5.00


3.00-.



3.00


Positively
Valued

2.00

F-P
p.,p


The Three Voice Quality Profiles

Figure 6

Plot of the Voice Quality Profile Means
at the Two Levels of A of the
Evaluative Analysis


I
P-T









6.00
Negatively
Valued


&--o Level 1 of B (EL)
.. 0 Level 2 of B (JR)
o-o Level 3 of B (SR)


5.00


4.00 ..o- .- .-- -.. ._____________
3.00







3.00


Positively
Valued
2.00

P-P


P-I.


The Three Voice Quality Profiles

Figure 7

Plot of the Voice Quality Profile '!eans
at the Three Levels of B of the
Evaluative Analysis


I
F-T


















TABLE 10


Analysis of Variance of Mean Dynamism Ratings



Source Mean Square df F


Sex (A) .299 1 .245

Age (B) 9.065 2 7.424**

A3 .675 2 .553

Error Between 1.221 114

Voices (C) 91.518 11 168.232**

AC 1.060 11 1.949*

BC 3.306 22 6.079**

ABC .809 22 1.487

Error Within .544 1254


-iT377ifanT. at1.0--1--
*significant at .05
**significant at .01


1____ _111____ ___





43












N co rN r o C)o

E-' c C' ." I)

rr Co n N Cl

i- I Co <

wU) r4N O CO 0o Nr
C) (N r-l CO m CO

Pr C N (N m CN

C 4N N N 4 e- M
C) U' U r- CO Co CO CO CO
*r *
4cJ 0 m r4m 4 4 n
0

m, C") co N
r4N C) M e N Co

' t' 0 tL L) L Ln
U < i
"-4 E-i In %D t- r- N
o C) r o n 4 '. 0
> C) *. *

Q) Ir E-i
> E.
L) In n -1 cr0L inC
C)Cn' N ct '- ifln N Cl)

E4 i-i (N ClM N Cr Cl

-0 N' r- t oL ri
^: 1 D N N in to




Noc N) C". U' N N
4) *
C


Cl CC m m m l m

+JE r o C l') NC C
dC) 4 Ce 01 o m m rN


w 4

I*r EJ I) c r-) O O
(N m r-4 r-1 N Ln


Grr: n < r^ m co
> E









C) : C






< < m c
< < M a Q










6.00
Non-Dynamic







5.00









4.00 --__


0---0


Level 1 of A (Males)
Level 2 of A (Females)




I '


3.0


Dyna-mic
2.00

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2


1 P


H- Y


The Twelve Voices


Figure 8

The Sex X Voice Interaction
of the Dynamism 7Analysis







o--o Level 1 of B (EL)
o.....o Level 2 of B (JR)
c--co Level 3 of B (SR)


6.00
non-dynnai c


G




S..

,/'pl1**


p.r..


0O
c?


6
\* /

/
dy/nami c

2.00

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2


LP (iL L I.
The Twelve Voices


I3 T


Figure 9

The Aje X Voice Intcraction of th-
Dyrn-i ism Analysis


I P






intra-voice type differences were much smaller than inter-

voice type differences. Inspection of Figure 8 indicates

that the sex by voice type interaction was primarily

attributable to differences between males and females in

the rating cf high and low loudness voices. There was an

overall trend, however, for the females to make ratings,

relative to the male ratings, toward the dynamic pole on

the IIP, 1HL and HT voices and toward the non-dynamic nole

on the ],P, LL and LT voices.

The plot of the age by voice interaction in

Figure 9 shows that sizeable differences occurred among

the age groups with regard to the ratings of several of the

voices. The N\ewnan-Keuls technique (Viner, 1962; 309-310)

was used to test differences among the ordered age grouo

nmans at each of the levels of C. The results of these

tests are presented schematically in Figure 10. Age group

means which share a coinmon underlining were not found to be

significantly different at the .05 level. As can be seen

in Figure 10, significant differences among the age groups

were found at eight of the twelve levels of C. Figure 9

shows that the EL age group tended to rate the HP', LP and

HL voices more toward the dynamic pole than did either of

the other two age groups. This tendency may have accounted

for the significant B main effect. Figure 10 shows that,

of the seven instances in which two of the age groups were

significantly different from the remaining age grour but

not from each other, two involved differences between the

JR age group and the other two. Although such results do













Level 1 ofC
(HP ) -

Level 2 of C B! B2 B_
(HP2)


Level 3 of C B B B2
(LP1)

Level 4 of C Bj._B B2
(LP2)


Level 5 of C B_1 Bi -
(HL1)

Level 6 ofC B] BI B
(HL,2)


Level 7 of C B__B2 B1
(LL1)

Level 8 of C B3 B __
(LL2)


Level 9 of C _2. P,- B3
(HT1)

Level 1.0 of C B3 B B2
(lIT2 )
(HTT)


Level 11 of C B J B3
(LT1)

Level 12 of C _BII B3
(LT2)


Figure 10: Schematic Presentation of the Neewman-Keuls
Tests on The Ordered Age Group Dynramism
Means


[Means Which Share a Common Line were n-t Significantly
Different at the .05 alpha Level.]




48

not make a hypothesis of a developmental trend in the ratings

untenable, neither do they offer strong support to such a

hypothesis.

The significant 2C and BC interactions necessitated

evaluating hypothesis 2 by computing the planned comparisons

among the dynamism ratings of the IHP, IL and IT voices at

the two levels of A and the three levels of '. Five t-tests

were employed to test the following directional hypothesis:

HO: (rlL1 + I-L2 + iTi + L7.*T2) -2 (l7P1 + i-2) > 0. The null

hypothesis .'as rejected at all levels of A and beyond the

.001 level, one tailed. Thus, the high loudness and high

tempo voices were rated by all groups as more dynamic than

the high pitch voices.

The Ne.i mn-1reulCs technique innerer 1962; 309-310)

was used to test differences among the ordered voice type

means at the two levels of A and the three levels of B.

The results of these tests are presented schematically in

Figure 11. Voice type means which share a corn~on underlining

were not found to be significantly different at the .01 level.

Figure 11 shoWs that across all subject groups stable

differences were found between high and low loudness and high

and low temno voices. In all cases, the HL and HT voices

were rated as more dynamic that the LL and LT voices. The

findings with regard to HP and LP voices were less consistent,

but there was a general tendency for the LP voices to be

rated as r:ore dynamic than the HP voices.

As a means of evaluating hypothesis 3, which stated

that voices of similar voice type would also receive similar




































































CN (N CN
E-t



,-- r l
1.^ c? L^ \


4I


CM\


0 -

i -


0
0o 0





SC.









0 }.-
! CO
A 0
-P




E r--I
r-'




t cV

C 0C


CD


4Ul C)


0 ^ r-4
H i









,C3
C) F -A







-I -P


4-H

0 rJ -
C



0 C U



r- -rH


C)



t0 0






*4


r-;


41
0-
U)
cnC

,-
> 0C







evaluative and dynamism ratings, the results of the Newman-

Keuls tests with respect to voices of the same type were

examined. In order to state with more certainty that true

differences between voices of the same type were not

ignored, tests were also computed with alpha set at .10.

Table 12 presents the significance levels obtained for the

comparisons of voices of the same type at the two levels of

A and the three levels of B. As can be seen from the Table,

significant differences between the two HP, the two IHL and

the two IT voices were fairly consistently found across the

levels of A and B. 7At least with regard to the dynamism

ratings of these three voice types, the data of the

present study did not supCprt hypothesis 3. The data in

Table 1.2, however, te:ndea to ccnfirm hypothesis 3 with

regard to the LT and LP voice types and with regard to the

EL age group.

In order to obtain a more reliable estimate of the

contribution of voice type, the voice type means were

calculated. Table 13 presents the voice type means for the

males and females and for the three age groups. Figure 12

is a plot of the voice type means at the two levels of A;

the voice type means at the three levels of B are plotted in

Figure 13. Figure 12 shows that sex differences in the

ratings were small and that both sexes rated HP, LL and LT

voices toward the non-dynamic pole and LP, HL and HT voices

toward the dynamic pole. For both sexes, the most extreme

ratings were assigned to the high and low loudness voices,





















CV. C, .
z Z Z


CJ



E-I




r-




r-(









n
N


, C.


rl







0 ro












i l









ri-1


C
4c )C
4J


O
0


O) U





C0

0
O c
I .4


E
4 4












,
0
)0

O 0





C )




O U)


O
0

(N


> --

1-1-


Z c


CL H


CC C: o
2 m .H


CLr CL


O4-


(N a

0 (


0 -4




























C)
rH



4




>0




E(t
0








tr
0.0








O i-i
to1-
u.










C)
rH



-I

0
+-


0 4
C-,






- -
-I +J
r fC










6.0 0
Non-Iynamic








5.00








4.00 -


-- Level 1 of A (I.al.es)
0---O Level 2 of A (Females)


3.00


Dynamic
2.00


1 P


T Y.


The Six Voice Types


Figure 12

Plot of the Voice Type Means
at the Two Levels of A of the
Dynar.ism Analysis









6.00
Non--Dynamic


O-- Level 1 of B (EL)
.... 0 Level 2 of B (JR)
O-O Level 3 of B (SR)


5.00


3.00


' I

' J I
'I


Dynamic
2.00


LP L


I~


The Six Voice Types

Figure 13

Plot of the Voice Type Means at the
Three Levels of B of the Dynamism Analysis






while the least extreme ratings were assigned to the high

and low pitch voices.

As can be seen in Figure 13, largest differences

among the age groups occurred in the ratings of the LTP,

IIL, LL and LT voice types. The LP voice type .was rated

toward the dynamic pole by the SP age group and toward the

non-dynamic pole by the JR age group. similarly to the

males and females, the EL age group's rating of the LP

voice type was near the dynamism scale midpoint. All groups

rated the LL and LT voice types as non-dynamic and the IHL

voice type as dynamic. The ratings of these three voice

types did. show something of a developmental trend, in

that differences occurred either between the two clder and

the youngest age groups or the two younger and the oldest

age groups, bxt not between the middle age group and the

other 'two.

It was also of some interest to consider the

dynamism ratings in terms of Markel's original VQP procedure.

Table 2 shows that four voices of each VQP were included in

the present study. The voices included in each profile

group were as follows: P-P: HP1, HP2, LL2 and LTI ; P-L:

LP1, HiL1, HL2, 1LT2; P-T: LP2, LLT, UlT1 and HT2. Table

14 presents the mean dynamism ratings of the three VOQP's

by the three age groups and the males and females. Figure

14 is a plot of the VQP means at the tw.o levels of A; the

VQP means at the three levels of B are presented in Figure 15.

As can be seen i:n Figures 14 and 15, the P--P VOP was

consistently rated as non-rdynaalic, the P-L VO)P was consistently















0


C,
E
E-,




C)








cn

3 to
O5t
0 0



-CO
CI













)
E-'







0




4


-i m N M
Fic M) C rO al


0 U)

.-I ^
4-4 O
0 Q



C,
>1 e-'


r-1Ca


C,.C.





UC)
C O


















c.l)
E-3
0












CO
r-1'
>1
0 >1













cP .










M in


C) CO
C) CO
* e
















oo n
%1D VL





















Q O
, CO
N cc



















l -I
U) C


co) Co N
















- (N Ce
CNI N N










CN r- r-











N Cr-i
r- co 0















* *H -*



-H *H
4-)



0 0 0

M 1-) UC







o-o Level i of A (males)
c--o Level 2 of A (females)


6.00

Non-Dynamic







5.00









4.00









3.00







Dynamic
2.00


p-'Y


The Three Voice Quality Profiles
Figure 14

Plot of the Voice Quality Profile Means
at the Two Levels of A of the
Dynami s;i Ani lysis


P"L









6.00
Non-Dynamic








5.00









4.00-----


(j,
2:


Cr-OLevei 1 of B
O-....OLevel 2 of B
O---Level 3 of B


'-


3.00


Dynamic
2.00


I I I
P-P .P-1. --T
The Three Voice Quality Profiles

Figure 15

Piot of the Voice Quality Profile Means
at the Three Levels of B of the
Dynamism Analysis


(EL)
(JPR)
(SR)




59

rated as dynamic and the P-T VO1 was generally rated as

dynamic but less dynamic than the P-L VOW"












Chanter TV


Discussion


The extent to which the findings of any study

can be generalized is dependent upon the subjects employed,

the variables sampled and the methods used. In the present

study, both males and females were employed as subjects

and three different age levels of children were sampled.

The population from-;n which these children were draw.'n, however,

included_ a high percentage of the children of professional

people and, perhaps. as a result, the children tertde.', as:

a crou, to score 1igch on standard ability escct. Strickere

and Zax (1S66) report tnat the ability to utilize aJl seveT n

points of semantic differential scales is related to

intelligence among children in the fourth and eight grades

but not the twelfth grade. Thus, interpretations of

findings with regard to the EL and JR groups arc limited

by this variable.

Other limiting factors in the present study

include tne _Lchnicaue enmploved to obtain the judgments and

the limited sample of all male voices which the children

rated. The findings' of previous studies with regard to the

evaluative and dvnamiis dimensions indicate that they are

the most critical ones for obtaining judgmr.ents from children,

especially when people are being rated, Previous studies

60




6.

were also utilized to select individual scales. It should be

noted however, that the results reflect only group stereotypes

and do not provide information about individual subject

responses to the separate speakers. In addition, it is not

possible to make statements about all possible combinations

of pitch, loudness and tempo nor about the possible effects

of other voice qualities.


Sex Differences

The sex-of-judge affected both the dynamism and

evaluative ratings,. In both analyses, the nain effect of

sex was not significant, while the interaction of sex-of-

judge with voice was. In general, this finding was attributable

to the extreme ratings made by the females, especially of

the IIL and LI, voices. Doth males and females judged m.n:

w.ho spoke loudly to be more dynamic and more nositively

valued than ;men ,:hn spoke softly.

Goodenough (.1957) found that, in our culture,

females, more than males, are encouraged to attend to the

expressive behavior of others. That females would be more

able than males to make discrimination of individual

differences on the basis of voice alone, is a logical

extrapolation from these findings. Dimitrovsky (1964)

found this to be the case in a study which required children to

select the intended emotion of speakers on the basis of

voice al.one. The correct-incorrect dichotomy employed by

Dimitrovsky is not clearly applicable to the present study.

However, the hypothesis, with regard to the dcynami sn ratings






of the six voice types was confirmed by the results of the

present study. Thus, one way in which the ratings can be

viewed as correct or incorrect is to consider the following

as correct ratings: (1) dynamic: LP, 1iL and lIT and

(2) non-dynamic: HP, LL and LT. This system is essentially a

restatement of the original hypothesis regarding the dynamAism

ratings. Reinspecting the voice type means reveals that,

although all differences are small, the females' responses are

extreme in the correct direction with regard to the HL, LL,

HT and ILT voice type and the responses of the males and

extreme in the correct direction with regard to the HP and

LP voice types. Thus, it appears that the females are more

sensitive to l.oudn.es and tempo differences while the males

are more sensitive to differe-nces in pitch.

Sex differences in the evaluative ratings of the

voices were much larger. Differences with regard to the

pitch and tempo voice types were sal. while the ratings

of the two lourdness voice tvrype showed a definite interaction-

with the sex factor. The females made more extreme ratings

than did the males of both the HL and the LL voice types.


Age Differences

The ratings of the voices on both the evaluative

and the dynamism dimensions were affected by the age of

the judge. Ir the evaluative analysis, the ace by voice

interaction was significant, while in the dynamism analysis both

the interaction of age with voice and the main ,ffect of

age were significant. Further, the nature oE the age






differences in the evaluative analysis ,was suggestive of a

developmental trend in the ratings.

In practically all cases, the mean evaluative

ratings of the voices by the middle age group (JR) separated

the mean ratings of the voices made by the oldest (SR) and

the youngest (EL) age groups. The few exceptions to this

pattern occurred with respect to voices which elicited small

differences in the ratings of the three age groups. When

the data were converted to voice type means rather than

individual voice means, the developmental pattern was clear

across all voice types. All three age groups evaluatcd

loud (HL) speakers as positively valued and quiet or soft

(LL) speakers as negatively valued. None of the age groups

judged the fast (H!T) speakers to be either positively or

negatively valued. Ho-wver, the youngest children (EL)

rated those who spoke slo..y (LT) as negatively' valued and

the oldest children (SR) rate-d slow spe akers (LT) as positively

valued. Sir.ilarly, while the EL age group rated HP speakers as

positively valued and LP speakers as negatively valued,

just the reverse was true for the SR age group.

It seents possible that the difference obtained

between the EL and SR age groups in the ratings of the !P and

LP voices, might be attributable to the fact that elementary

school children spend much of their time :ith females.

Characteristically, the voices of females arc higher in

pitch than the voices of males and the LE. age group rated I:e

voices as positively valued. Another exulanztion for the

results is that. even the boys in elncmntary school typically






have high pitched voices themselves. Perhaps the negative

evaluation of the LT speakers by the EL age group reflects

the characteristically higher activity level of children of

this age. Older children, on the other hand,are typically

more reflective and perhaps this accounts for the value

they place upon a low tempo in speech.

Perhaps the most striking difference among the

dyncamism ratings of the three age groups was that the EI,

age group responded more consistently to voice type in

judging the voices than did the other two age groups. The

ratings of the former age group differentiated less between

voices of the same voice type. This result seems somewhat

inconsistent with the findings of both Gates (1927) and

Dimitrovsky (1964). In both studies older children were

superior to younger children in judging the intended emotion

of the speaker on the basis of voice alone. As previously

mentioned, a correct-incorrect dichotomy can be extrapolated

from hypothesis 2 of the present study. The system requires that

correct responses be defined as follows: (1) dynamic: LP, H.

and HT and (2) non-dynamic: HP, LL and LT. Comparing the

three age groups with the dichotomy in mind reveals that when

significant differences occur among the age groups, the EL

group's rating of the voices is always in the correct

direction. Thus, in the present study, the youngest children

employed were more often correct in making the dynamism

ratings.

The Gates (1927) and Dimitrovsky (1964) studies,

as did the present one, required the children to rate the




65

voices via a primarily verbal methodology. The methodologies

employed in the earlier studies were developed specifically

for that purpose. The semantic differential, the rating method

employed in the present study, in contrast, has previously

been extensively validated for the age groups included.

Thus, it seems likely that younger children did not do as

well as older children in the earlier studies because of an

inability to express the discrimination which they made,

rather than an inability to make the required discrimination.

In fact, Gates (1927) noted that the youngest children in

her study had difficulty understanding the instructions.

In general, the present study offers empirical support to the

theory that young children are particularly sensitive to

nonverbal vocal cues.


Voice Type and Voice Quality Profile

One purpose of the present study was to determine

if functional cr personality ratings of voices would

differentiate the voices in a pattern similar to the structural

or voice quality ratings. The evaluative analysis revealed

that although the subjects discriminated among the twelve

voices, it could not be concluded that differences obtained

resulted from differences among the six voice types. This

was true because significant differences were consistently

found between voices of the same voice type. The failure

to obtain consistent differences on the evaluative dimension

among voices of different voice types is in agrenent with

the findings of Markel and Roblin (1965). They found






differences on the evaluative dimension but not the activity

and potency dimensions when voice quality and voice set

were held constant. These differences, however, were

attributable to content variations inconsistent with the

speaker's voice set. Markel, Meisels, and Houck (1964)

found no differences among speakers on the evaluative

dimension when voice set and content were constant. Since

content and voice set were constant in the present study,

the differences obtained cannot be attributed to these

variables.

In the Markel and Roblin study all ratings were

made on just one speaker. Ratings in the Markel, Meisels

and Houck study were mean ratings of groups, In the present

study, on the other hand, the individual ratings of several

speakers were employcd. Thus, unlike i-he other studies

discussed above, the present study could be affected by

variations in voice qualities other than pitch, loudness and

tempo.

An interesting result in the evaluative analysis

was the clear and unexpected rating of the HL voices as

positively valued and of the LL voices as negatively

valued. It seems possible that this finding is related

to the fact that all speakers were males. In our culture

it is difficult for a man to be both dynamic and negatively

valued. Also of interest was the finding that when the

ratings were converted to three VQP means, the P-L VQP was

rated as negatively valued by the males and the SR and JR age

groups. This finding is in agreement with hypothesis 1 which






was not confirmed when the voice type data were examined.

With respect to the dynamism ratings the relationship

between the structural ratings, and the functional ratings

of the voices is more consistent with the original hypotheses.

Although other variables perhaps other voice qualities,

affected the dynamism ratings of the voices, few subject

groups made intra-voice type differentiations among the

LP and LT voice types. In addition, with the exception of

the HP and HT voice tapes, the EL age group did not

significantly differentiate between voices of the same voice

type.

Hypothesis 2, that HL and HT voices would be rated

as more dynamic than II:' voices, was confirmed. Thus, not

only did the dynamism ratings reflect a functional discrimination

among the structural types but also the pattern of discriinations

was that which was predicted fro-m previous studies. That is,

loud and fast speakers were rated as stronger, larger and

faster than speakers whose voices were high in pitch. The

most critical finding with regard to the LL and LT speakers

was that they received ratings on the dynamism dimension

which were just the reverse of the HL and lHT ratings

respectively. In addition, all subject groups rated the LD

voice type as more dynamic than the HP voice type.

When the dynamism ratings wore combined on the

basis of the voice quality profiles, the pattern of ratings

suggested by hypothesis 2 was clear. The P-L and P-T voices

were rated as dynamic, while the P-P voices were rated as

non-dynamic. With the exception of uhe SR age group, the






VQP means indicated that the P.-L speakers were more dynamic

than the P-T speakers. The SR age group differentiated very

little between the P--L and P-T VQP groups.

In general; the subject groups consistently rated

the HP and HL voice types good, fair and important, and

the LL voice type bad, unfair and not important. The HL and

HT voice types were rated strong, fast and large, and the

HP, LL and LT voice types were rated weak, slow and small.

Thus, males who speak loudly or with a high pitched voice

are valued while maleswho speak softly are not, and males

who speak loudly or quickly are seen as Miore dynamic than

males who speak slowly, softly, or have high pitched

voices.


Inmolcations for F1ture Resc:rch

An interesting finding of the present study w.as

the powerful effect of !cudness on the ratings. On1 the

basis of these findings, it seems likely that detailed

investigations of loudness alone would be fruitful. In

view of the fact that accurate, irrimediate feedback of

intensity levels can be- obtained mechanically, this variable

could be investigated through many other methodologies.

The data also suggested that investigations of

voice qualities in females would be a valuable contribution

to the area. It was hypothesized that, in our culture, a

dynamic man is also positively valued and that the evaluative

ratings reflected this cultural bias. it seems logical to

expect different patterns to emerge if female speakers are

employed.






The ratings of the voices in the present ;study

were- affected by variables other than the voice qualities

included. Since the study controlled for both voice set cnd

content differences, it seems quite likely that the

uncontrolled variables were other voice qualities. Especially

with regard to evaluative ratings, the data of the present

study suggest that these qualities may be extremely important.

There are a variety of reasons for investigating

the relationship between voice and personality through

methods other than the one employed in the present study.

The semantic differential is not reliable for children younger

than eight, yet this study indicates that young children

are sensitive to differences in voice quality. Thus, a

methodology which allowed the use of even younger subjects

would be of value. It has previously been mentioned that

the data of this study iere group stereotypes of the

different voice types. Although data regarding groups is

an important aspect of psychology, a methodology which

provided reliable information with regard to individual

responses to the voice types would be desirable. Finally,

of course, results which are independent of the methodology

employed, are very unlikely to be spurious.

An approach which would deal simultaneously with

several of the limitations of the methodology employed in

the present study is to investigate voice and personality

via an operan;t methodology. For example, loudness might be

investigated by obtaining, from the same person, scver-_a

speech samples identical in all respects except the loudness.




70

These stimuli could then be employed as subsequent events for

as many operants on which a baseline had previously been

obtained. Thus, in an operant study, changes in the rate of

an operant would define the reinforcing properties of the

different loudness levels. Such a methodology would make

it possible to employ pre-schoolers, and even infants, in

voice and personality studies.












Chapter V


Summary


One purpose of this study was to test directly

hypotheses emerging from the work of Markei and his

students on the voice quality profile (VOP). Six voice

types were also defined in order to gain further information

about high and low scores on pitch, loudness and tempo,

the three qualities included in previous V'P studies.

Thus, the six voice typ-e included were as follo-...s: high

pitch (HP) low pitch (LP high loudness (HL), low

lo'.3nness (L.) high tempo (LT) and low tempo (LT) A

second pu;r-pos of the study was to investigate : age and

sex diffec-ences i:n judging personality front the voice.

Two male speakers of each voice type were rated by

a31 subjects. Three e\'vluative scales (e.g. "good-bad") and

three _dy-namism scales (e.g. "large-small") from Osgood's

Se:antic Differential were used to obtain the ratings. The

twelve voices were rated cn the three evaluative scales by

120 males and feonales in the fourth, fift'i, eighth, ninth,

eleventh and twelfth grades. A similar group rated the

twelve voices on the three dynamism scales.

The evaluative and dynarninm ratings were analyzed

in sop-ar-at rcep[ated measurements analyses of variance.

Individual subject scores were the mean ratings made by the

71






subject of each of the twelve voices. The twelve voices

were the levels of the repeated measurements factor; the

levels of the two other factors were the three age groups

and the two sex groups.

It was predicted that HP and HT speakers would

be rated as more positively valued than III. speakers and that

HL and HT speakers would be rated as more dynamic than HP

speakers. The latter prediction was confirmed by the data

while the former was not. Differences between voices of the

same type led to the conclusion that voice qualities, other

than pitch, loudness and tempo, affected the ratings,

especially those made on the evaluative scales. In general,

men who suoke loudly, or with high pitched voices, were

rated( as valued while those who spoke softly were not; mlen
who spoke loudly or quickly were seen as more dynamic than

speakers w.ho spoke slowly or softly or with high--pitched

voices. An interesting finding was that when the voices

were examined in terms of VQP, rather than voice type, the

data tended to confirm the hypothesis regarding the

evaluative ratings as well as the hypothesis regarding the

dynamism ratings.

The se(x-of-judge affected both the evaluative and

dynamism ratings of the voices. In the evaluative analysis,

the sex differences were attributed to the extreme ratings

of the females, especially of the HL and LL voices. The sex

differences in the dynamism ratings were attributed to the

larger discrimination made by the males between the HP and

LD voices. The females, on the other hand, discriminated







more between I1L and LL voices and I1T and LT voices than did

the males.

Age differences were also found in both the

evaluative and dynamism ratings, There was a consistent

developmental trend in the ratings of the voices on the

evaluative scales. With regard to the ratings of the

voices on the dynamism scales, it was concluded that the

youngest age group was the most accurate.

Further research was suggested with female

speakers, other voice qualities, the loudness voice quality

alone and younger judges.





































APPENDICE S






































APr,:ND-X A











Instructions to Subjects


Everyone should now have a booklet containing

four sheets. Raise your hand if you don't have a booklet

or .if your booklet doesn't have 4 sheets. (Pause) We

are going to see if you can guess what some ren are like

just by hearing them say one sentence.

Before we try some examples please write the

following information in the spaces provided on pa.e 1 of

your booklet. First your name (Pause); the month, day and

year of your birth (Pause); your sex -- if you are a boy,

put a circle around the ~, if you are a girl, put a circle

around the F (Pause); next fill in the grade you are in

in school (Pause).

Now you are ready to learn how to make your

guesses. You will always indicate what you think a man is

like by making an X on an adjective scale. An adjective

scale is two words which are opposite in meaning like tall

and short. These words are printed on opposite sides of a

page and are separated by 7 dashes or lines. Example A on

page 1 is the adjective scale tall-short (Pause). Notice

that the seven dashes or lines are separated by two dots.

This is to help you place your X in the correct space.

Example B shows the meaning of each of the seven spaces on

the tall-short scale. You right like to read these labels

76





silently to yourself while I read them aloud. Putting an

X in the space closest to the word tall would mean that you

guessed the man was TVERY TALL, The next space would indicate

that the man was QUITE TALL. You would use this space if

you thought a man was taller than SLIGHTLY TALL but shorter

than VERY TALL. The space in the middle of the tall-short

scale should b used when your guess is that the man is

AVERAGE in height, The first space on the short side of the

tall--short scale should be used if you guess that a man is

SLIGHTLY SHORT, that is, a little shorter than average. The

next space on the scale would indicate that you thought the

man was QUITE SHORT and finally the space closest to the

word short should be used if you guess a man is \L F SHIORT.

Exariple C shows the tall-short scale with a

guess already indicated. When I heard :nan number 1 speak

I guessed that he was just slightly taller than average

so I placed my X in the space next to the center space

on the tallside of the scale. Example D shows my guess

about the height of nan 2. Something about the way he

sounded made me guess that he was QUITE SHORT so I put my

X in the second space from the word short.

Now let's try a few for practice. Before you

hear the voice, you will be told what number it is. Be

sure to put your X for a particular voice on the scale

next to the voice number [Voices 3, 4 and 5 were played

and time w;as allowed for rating.] Are there any questions?

(Pause)

0:; let's try some more. On each of the next three






pages you .will make guesses about 12 voices. On each page

you will mark your guesses on a different scale. Write

down your first impression and be sure that you pat down

an X each time you hear a voice. However, never put more

than 1 X on the same scale. Be sure to put your X's in

the middle of one of the spaces; never put an X on the dots.

Please turn the page and notice which adjective

scale you will using to make guesses about the next 12

voices.

The above phrase followed the first two sets of

twelve voicescon each type.

All voices were preceded by an announcement of

the voice number and followed by approximately 10 seconds

of silence,









































APPLN'DIX 1











Samole Instruction Sheet


SEX: M F


BIRTH DATE:
Month


Day


Example A:



Example B:


TALL


Example C:


Number
1. TALL


* ~ v


Exafrl~e I):


2 TALL


PRACTICE VOICES


3 T L : : : : : :

4 TALL : : :

5 T L : : : : :






DO NOT TUP-- PA"GE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO


N A ,i


Year


TALL


GRADE:


SHORT


E-i
H -
,-1.<


H ^
C:
C:E-


C


SHORT


SHORT


S- SHORT


SHORT

SI'ORT

SHORT


___~


-I -I-" ~




81




Samp e Rating Sheet








MAN >< H4 < H H K
NUMBER B :D <
C; ; < u. C C > -.
1 UNFAIR : FAIR

2 UN FA IR : FAIR

3 UN FAIR FAIR






> >
r", D 3 5 cc : C: F, > r

4 UNFAIR FAIR

5 UNFAIR : : : : : : FAIR







K C2D 5- >
H6 UNFAR : : : : : : FA








K3 C'- L^~ fi; ML M r: T
7 UNFAIR : : : : : FAIR

8 UNFAIR : : : : : FATP

9 UNFAIR : : FAI ,


DO NOT TUPN PAGE UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO










LIST OF REFERENCES


Allport, G. and Cantril, HI. Judging personality from the
voice. Journal of Social Psychology, 1934, 5,
37-55.

Barnard, J. W. The effects of anxiety on connctative mcaningq.
Child Development, 1966, 37, 461--472.

Brandwin, M. A. Levels of reference in connotative meaning:
A developmental study. Papers of the lichigan
Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 19-6, 56,
343--353.

Cantril, I. and Allport, G. The Psychology of Radio. New
York: Harper, 1935.

Costanzo, F. S., MarkeL, N. N, and Costanzo, P. R. Voice
quality profile and perceived emotion. 'ournal
of Counseling I svcholoqv, 1969, 16, 267;-270.

Dirmitrovsky, L. yhe ability l o intify thCl anotional
meaning of vocal co,'rtjs3sions at successive age
levels. In JDoel R. Dvo/it (Pd.) The C -.L.uni ti
of Emotional M:ea.nin-'. New York: McGraw- i.l, 164.

Dittm-nn, A. T. and Wynne, L. C. Linguistic- techniques and
the analysis of emotionality in interviews, Jou-C. !
of Abnormal and Socia. Psychology, 1961, 63, 2 1-?C04.

Di Vesta, F. J. A normative study of 220 concepts rated on
the ser.'antic diffE--erntial in grades 2 through 7.
Journal of GenCeic s2ycicloov, 1966, 109, 205-229.

Di Vesta, F. J. and Dick, "'. The test-retest reliability: of
children's r.tiJno;s on the semantic differential.
Educati.Onal and ..Pycholocica.l 2Measurement, 1966,
M; ---------- --'----
26, 605- -10.

Donahoe, J. W. Changes in ni eaning as a function of age.
Journa! of Genetic Psychology, 1961, 99, 23-2C.

Gates, G. S. The role of the auditory elei-ent itr the
interpretaJtion of emotion. Psychcl ogical B 'u letin,
1927, 24, 175,

Goodcnough, I. W. Interest ini persons as an aspect of sex
differences in the early years. Genetic Psvchology
M.on.o.graphs, 1j957, 55, 287-323.




83
Kramier, E. Judgment of personal characteristics and emotions
from nonverbal properties of speech. Psychological
Bulletin, 1963, 60, 408-420.

Kramer,, Personality stereotypes in voice: A reconsideration
of the data. Journal of Social Tsychology, 1.964,
62, 247-251.

Lilly, I. S. A developmental study of the semantic di-fer-.ntial.
Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University, 1965.

Mahl, G. F. and Schulze, G. Psychological research in the
extralinguistic area. In T. A. Sebeol, A. S. Haves
and 1M. C. Bateson, (Eds.), Aporoaches to Semiotics.
The Hague: Mouton and Comp'anyT'7, '9T", pp. '--TT

Maltz, H. E. Ontogenetic changes in the meaning of concepts
as measured by the semantic differential. Child
Development, 1963, 34, 667-674.

Market, N. N. and lamp, E. P, Connotative meanings of certain
phoneme sequences. Studies in Ling.uistics, 1960,
15, 47-61.

Markel, N. N. The reliability of coding paralanguage-: itch,
loudness and tempo, journall of Verbal Lucrrij r aid
Verbal Behavior, 1965', ,~0?-30. "

Marhkl, N. N. The relationshi'- :t. 'een voice quality profile
and I:,'I profiles in psychiaLric patients, Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1969a, 74, 61-66.

Ma,]-el, ". N. Personal communication, 1969hb.

N.and Vouck, J EN Judging
Market, N. N., Maisch!, M. and Pouck, J. E, Judging
personality from voice quality, Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psvcholo y, 19-4-'T''' 5 38-463.

Market, 7. N. and Roblin, G. L. The effect of content and
sex--of.- judge on judgments of personality from
voice. International Journlr of Social Psychiatry,
1965, 11, 295-30T-0.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. The
Meas.:ueent of -eaning. Urbana: Univer TSi
or Illiioss Press, 1957.

Pear, T. H. Voice and Personality. London: Chapman and
Hall, TT1931.

S:ipir, F. Speech as a prsonality trait. A o rican Journal
of S.ciolo; v,/ 1927, 32, 892-905.

;Sm'a E,. Ae Prd sex: differences in the semantic strucL-Lre
of children, Doctoral Dissertation, Universit o.f
iichg c'.jan, 1958.





L^--
Stricker, and Za:,, Intelligcence and semantic differential
discriminability. Psychological ReporLs, 1966,
18, 775-.778.

Thorndike E L. and Lorge, I. The Teacher's i'ord Book of
30,000 Words. New York: Bureau of-u"-F aT:i"T-s,
Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1944.

Trager, G. L. Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies
in Linguistics, 1958, 13, 1-12.

Vargas, R. A study of certain personality characteristics
of male college students who report frequent
positive experiencing and behaving. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Florida, 19E8.

Winner, B, J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.
New York: '"cGraw-HflY Book Company, 1962.











BIOGRAPHIICAT, SKETCH


Judith Ann Phillis was born in Uniontown,

Pennsylvania, on March 22, 1942. She was graduated from

Susquehanna Township High School, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,

in June of 1960. In the fall of that year she entered

Carnegie Institute of Technology (Carnegie-Mellon University),

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from which she was graduated with

the degree of Bachelor of Science in June, ]964.

From June, 1964, through August, 1965, Miss Phillis

was employed as a research assistant at the Craig House for

Children in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In September, 1965,

she began graduate study in psychology at the University of

Florida. From June, 1967, until August, 1967, she was

employed as a laboratory technician at the Cormunication

Sciences Laborato-ry, Univrsity of Florida. She received

the degree 1Master of Arts in August, 1967, and since that

time she has pursued her work toward the degree of Doctor

of Philosophy.








This dissertation was prepared under the direction

of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and

has been approved by all members of that committee. It was

submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and

to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

December, 1969



Dean, CoL~L Ars and Sciences



Dean, Graduate School




Supervisory Comnittee:









C/71
I-
^LL___^




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EQQ5VAIH9_W12P90 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-19T20:33:05Z PACKAGE UF00097773_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

CHILDREN'S JUDGMENTS OF PERSONALITY ON THE BASIS OF VOICE QUALITY By JUDITH ANN PHILLIS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1969

PAGE 3

Co rjy right by Judith. ?.rm ^hillis ].9C9

PAGE 4

To ni.y parents

PAGE 5

Acknowledgments The author wishes to express hor f-.incere qratituda for the assistance and guidance so v;jllingly provided by Dr. James C. Dixon, Dr. Kornan V. Markel, Dr. Kenry P. PennypacJ;cr , Dr. Madelaine Carey Ramey , Dr. Audrey S. Sclutiiachcr , and Dr. Vernon D. Van De Piet , the nenbers of her d o c t o r a .1 c o '•'jr; i 1 1 e e , The author is particul^irD.y grateful to the fclJ owing co';a;!ittee mer.ibers: Dr. Norman N. Markol provided extensive assistance end encouragement v/i ch regard to both theoretical ^.^d practical proble:;is . Dr. riadelaine Carey P.amey's advice concerning matters of statistical design v.'as raost valuable. Dr. Jaiaes C. Dixon v;as a patient mentor through four years of graduate stiidy. The author also gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the follov;i!\g: I-!rs. Ruth Duncan arranged for the use of the facilities of the ". K. vonge Laboratory School, and the teachers and students were extrer.vely cooperative. Mrs. Will a Seifrigc devoted rciany hours to the preparation of the experimental tapeis. Tht! facilities of the I'liivor^it'' Ccpputirig Center iv

PAGE 6

ano. Mrs. Mary Lynch, consultant, nade tlie analysis of the resultri a much sir.ipler task. Miss Kathy Wright provided rriuch appreciated assistance in the tabulation of the data. Miss Pat Pov7ers caroful.ly proofread the manuscript and Mrs. Charlotte Gregory typed it professionally des::>ite the pressures of tine.

PAGE 7

TABLE or CONTENTS Vage List of Tables. , vii List of rigures ix Cliapter I Introduction , 1 Chapter i:i -Method 17 Chapter III Results 27 Cliapter lY Discu55sion 60 Chapter V Surxr.ary 71 Appendices 74 Appendix A . . . ,..,...... 75 Appendix H , ^ . , 79 List of References •........,,....,.,...... 82 VI

PAGE 8

LIST or TABLES Page Table 1 Frequencies and riajor Factor Loadings of the Adjective Scales 13 Table 2 -Original and Direct -lagnitude Estiiaation Tscores . „ 3 9 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Percentile Placcnent on Ability Tests for tj^e Tv<7elve Sui.)ject Groups. 21 Table 4 rieano and Standard Deviatiojis of Subject Age in ?']onths for the Twelve Subject Groups r . . . ^ 23 Talkie 5 Subjects Discarded fcowi the Twelve Subject Groups , 24 Table 6 /analysis of Variance of Mean Evaluative Rating £! , . , 28 Table 7 Mean Evaluative Ratings of the Tv/elve Voices by the Males and the Females and by the Three Age Groups , 29 Table 8 :iean Evaluative Eatings of the Six Voice Type:by the Males and the Eenales and by ti:e Three A^ge Grouos 35 Table 9 :-Iean Evaluative Ratings of the Tliroe Voice Ouality Profiles b-' the 'lales and the Females and by th-:^ Three ;ge GrouD£ 39 Table 10 Aj^.alysis of Variance of Mean Dynanisn Ratings 42 Table 11 Mean Dyna'.iisn Ratings of the Twelve Voices by the Males and the Eenales and by the Three A.ge Groups „ 43 Table 12 Significance Levels for the Nev/rrian-Keuls Tests on the Dynariis'-a Means of the Voices of the Same Voice Type. 51 Table 13 ?':ean Dynaiaisn Ratings of the Six Voice Types by the MaZes and the Fevnales and by the Three A.ge Groups , 52 VI 1

PAGE 9

Pa-.;c Table 14 Mean Dynamism Patinas of the Three ^^oice Quality Profiles V^y the Males and the Femaler, and by the Three Age Groups..,, 5G VI 11

PAGE 10

LIST OF P'lGURrjn Page Figure I The Sex X Voicn Interaction of the Evaluative Analysis. . , , »....,. 30 Figure 2 •The Age X Voice Interaction of the Evaluative Analysis, ,...,.., 31 Figure 3 Scheinatic Presentation of the Nev-rman-Keuls Tests on the Ordered ^.'oice Evaluative Kofins 33 Figure 4 •Plot of the Voice Type Means at the T^-:o Lovely of A of the Evaluative Analysis 36 F'igure 5 Plot of the Voice Type Means at the Three Levels of B of the Evaluative Analysis 37 Figure G -Plot of the Voice Quality Profile 'leans at the Tv'o Leve.ls of A of th'i Evaluative Analysis ,......=..... . -10 Figure 7 Plot of t'le Voice Quality Profile M.ean?; at the Three Levels of 3 of the PJvaluative Analysis „ . , 4 J Figure 8 The 5'ex X Voice Interaction of the. Dynanisn A^nalysis 44 Figure 9 The Age X Voice Interactic^n of the Dynamism Analysis . . „ 4 5 Figure 10 Schematic Presentation of the N'e-vmanKeuls Tests on the Ordered Age Group Dynamism Means. 47 Figure 11 Schematic Presentation of the Nevvman-Keuls Tests on t:;!e Ordered Voice Type Dynam.ism iMeans „ 4 9 Figure 12 Plot of the Voice Type '-'eans at the Two Levels of A of the Dynamis"ii /analysis 53 Figure 13 Plot of the Voice Tyne Means at the Three Levels of D of the Dynamism Analysis.., 54 Figure 14 Plot of the Voice ouality Profile Means at the Two Levels of A of the Dynamism Aniilysi?; . . . . 57 Figure 15 Plot of the Voice Ouality Profile Means at the Three I,evels of Tof the Dynamism Ajialysis., 5'd o

PAGE 11

Chapter I Int. rod uc Lion Voicf5 and ^ersjonali ty The manlier in -./hich something is said, as v;ell as actual ccnteni-, has lonq been recognized as extremely irip.ortant in dGterii"iini!ig the laessage comnunicated . The An'.erican cowboy sho'.vcd his belief in the ver^icity of this statenerit v/ith. tlie p?irase, "Sr.iile when you say thaL, Partner." Voca]. vari c'.tions , a^ v;ell as gestural and facial ones, car; also bo employed to modify coirir.vjnicated messages. In addition, to the astute li3t::5n'jr, inf ori'iat.ion v;hich is not necessarily cominunicated into;:tior;a].ly is availeible frorii paralingui stic aspects of the voice. Thus, by his manner of spea-'ing , a lecturer nay well infocr. his audience cf his present mood and general uersonalit^^ characteristics as '.'cll oS the tot.)ic on which he is speaking. Despite the general agreement that the voice expresses both transient and relatively permanent states of the individual, it v.-as not until Panir's article, "ST)s.ech as a Persoria] ity 7rait" (1927) appeared triat systematic research iii t'le area began. Classic studies in the area are these of Fear (1531) and Allpcrt and Cantril (A] J port and Cantril,. 1?3':; Cai tril and Allport, 1935). Findings

PAGE 12

2 v;ere that age, sex and total parsoiiality s-; etches could be reliably matched with voices by thie judqes. In general, however, in matching ir.any aspects of personality with voices the inter-judge reliabilitv v;as rauch higher than t}ia validity. This finding has been confirmed by recent research (Kraiior , 19C4) . Kramer (1964) argues tliat the consistently high reliability in such judgments is itself a ty,:^e of validity, and tfiat the lack of agreement with criterion personality measures s'lould cast doubt on the validity of t'nese measures rather than on the validity of the voice as an indicator of individual differences. In additioi: to the need for validity in the criterion measures of personality employed, Kramer (1963) suggests that t;;e persoralities of judges is a variable which should be. invcH'tigated in voice and personality studies. In vie.; of the fact that "...certain b£;.sic. personality differences are a function of biological sex,..." Markcl and Koblin (1965) investigated the effects of this variable. Differer.ces in personality judgmont.s were obtained on the evaluative dimension of a semantic differential as a function of sex-ofjudge . These differences occurred as a function of content variations. In the r'arkel and Roblin study all voice sa/.-iples v.^ere provided by the Sc'ime speaker. Emj-'loying this procedure, no sex differences were found '/ith regard to the activity and potency dimensions. Anot}ier critical factor in these studies is the specification of the voices e)M!;loyed, !'!arkel (19G9 a) suggests the use of the terms "structural" an.d "functional" to describe

PAGE 13

3 the niethods employed in analyxing speech. He notes that the functional approacli consisjts of variou.-. type^ of renting techniques in v;hich persona].ity judgraents a::e made directly by judges. These studies have been rovicv;ed by Kramer (1963). The structural riethods are those v/hich enploy sone technique to quantify the speech v;ithout atten'.nting to make judgments about the speaker. Studies employing the latter methods have been reviov;od by Mahl and Schulze (1964) . Dittman and Vynne (1961), in an atto'.ipt to develop a structurc.l methodology, employed the typical idiographic approach of the linguist and were unable to obtain rolla}:ile ratings of parcilinguistic phe;no:;iena. Utilizing a nomothetic approach (coi'.pc'ring the individual to a group rather than focusing oii individual variations through time) Markel (1965) obtained high interjudge reliability in the coding of three aspects of para].i nguistic cr non-phonemic phenomena: pircJi, loudness and tempo. Children as Judges in Voice and Personality Studies Kramer (1964) has noted that v/hile there has been much, theorizing about the importance of developmental variables in the area of speech and personality, fev; empirical studies have been conducted. The primary contention in the area has been that young children are niore sensitive to nonverbal vocal cues than are adults. Dimitrovsky (1964) found sex and age differences in c?iildrep's ability to judge emotions on the basis of voice. In general, hov.'evcr, older children and fer.iales wore more accurate in their jiidgments. Gates (1927),

PAGE 14

in an earlier study, found that raore intcllicjent and older children correctly identified the intejidod emotions of speaker-5 raore frequently. Goodonoug]-, ' s (1557) finding;;that an interest in oL-her people is an extremely critical sex-type^: behavior for girls v.'hile boys are encouraged to develop an interest in objects is ii'iportant in t^lis regard. Especially relevant in predicting differential accuracy in judging personality from the voice is the finding that girls, more than boys, are ei-.couraged to attend to the expressive behavior of others and utilize trie infornation obtained in the manipulaticn of people. Thus, particularly v/hen children are err.ployed as judges, the sex and age of judges are iraportant variables in the area of voice and persor.cility . The Voice Quality Profile iMarkel's development of the Voice Oi^t^lity Profile (VQP) resulted from his atte;r.pts to cUiaJy^e voice qualities structurally rather than functionally. The advantage of such an approach is that the structural aspects of voice quality can then be related to a variety of botli transient and relatively permanent personality c;iaracteri sties . As mentioned above, the voice qualities on which reliability of ratings has been established are pitch, loudness and tempo. In order to determine the vnp of a particular speal:er, a group of judges rates one or several voice samples of the individual ill terms of these three dim.ensions. The m.ean of all ratin.gs obtained on a dimension is the score of that dimension. The scores for all indiA/idual voices rated by

PAGE 15

this teciinique aic then converted to T-scores, one distribution of Tscore:; for each dimension. Three profile groups are then ostab] if^hed and each individual is assigned to one on the basis of the highest T-score obtained. The three VQP grou;)S are Peak-Pitch (P-P) .Peak-Loudness (P-L) and Poak-Tc:-.';po (P-T) . With this technique, the VQP's of psychiatric patients (Markel, lS)6S'a) and college students (Costanzo, Markel, and Costan?.o, 3969; Vargas, 1968) have been obtained. Raters have alv/ays been graduate or uiidex'graduate university students. The VQP has been related to ".IIP J. profiles by !larl',el (19C9a) and to perceived er.ction by Cost^mzo, Markel and Costanzo (19o9) . Vargas (1963) has related the VOP to the frequency of positive experiencing and behaving, the California Fersonalitv inventory, the Tennessee Self-Concent Scale, FIKO-P, sej.f ratings of early childhood experiences, Jourard 's Self-Disclosure Questionnaire and judge-rated self-disclosure. Considering the pattern which emerges from all three studies, Vfirgas (196 8) hypothesized a t.v/o dineiisioM;-".! trait system to describe the personality differences ar.iong the three VQP groujjs. The mean :i:-iPI profiles (".arkel, 1969a) of the three VQP groups indicate that P-P voices are associated with personality descriptions v;hich include such, adjectives as "withdra^m" and "introverted." i^sychiatric patients -/ith the P-P VQP are likely to have a poor prognosis and be diagniosed as psychotic. The P-L VO^ a'nong }.isychiatric patients is

PAGE 16

indiceitive of a good prognosiK and a diagnosis of d''ipre£?sion or pfiychonsurosis . Personality descriptions of such people would likely include sucli adjectives as " ipii-iature" and "demanding." The P-T VOP is associated v;ith an MMPI profile v;ithin normal linits, and thus, on the basir^ of the ru!PI study, a personality description of healthy or average is suggested. The Ccstanzo, Markel and Costanzo (1359) study indicates that axri.ong college students P--P voices are more often associated with grief, P~L with anger or contem.pt and P-T with indifference regardless of the emotion intended by the speaker. This appears to support Markel's findings (1969a) , if one considers that depression is often viewed as a means of dcaj.ing \;ith anger and a grieving person is charatrteristically v/itiidrav/n. Notice that these are tl^e findings of the two studies for the P-L and P-P voices, respectively. The relationship between indifference and normalacy is less easily understood; hcv/evcr, this may merely indicate that none of tlie oth.er emotions was clearly portrayed. Essentially ^argas' (196 8) study is in agreement v/ith the previous two. He found that speakers whose VOP v/as P"T were significantly higher than the P-P and P-L speakers in self-disclosure , the reported frequency of positive experiencing and behaving and the number of positive early childhood experiences reported. All of these variables are associated v;ith healthy, adjusted people. The Vargas study also indicates that the ^-L VQP is associated with speakers vjho feel inadeauate and dissatisfied and v/ho are maladjusted in interpersonal relationships according to various

PAGE 17

7 scales of tho Tennesr.eo v^.clf Concept fcalo. Scores on FIRO-B indicate that the P-L VQP amory collcv^o raales is charc:cteriytic of people v;ho wish to control ot'iers but who are uii'.viiling to aivc in return. FIP.O-B scor'^s also indicate iiiqnif icant differences between the ^-? speakers and the P-L and P-T npaaliers in that the latter tv/o groups seek to gain control in interpersonal relations-lips . Thus, it appears that a consistent pattern has eraerged froia studies investigating persona]. ity and the VQ'^. The following is a sunnary of the behavioral coi^relates of the three structvirally defined VOP's? (!) P-P withdrav-7n and reserved but capable of naintaining mutually rewarding interpersonal reiationsbios with other neoole (2) P-L cingry, donanding and seeking to contrcl others but not giving in interpersonal relationships (3) P~T outgoing and seeking to nar-ipulate others but also 'billing to give to others and able to maintain mutually rev/ardirig relationships '%';. th then. Selec t i o_n _of the Pa t i ng To chn in uo The problem of choosing a rating technique is a particularly diffic;ult one v/hen children are to be the raters. They are notorious for the unreliabi] i ty of their ratings as v;e3. 1 as for their tendency to adopt favorite response styles regardless of the stimulus properties to be judged. It is, of course, possible to control for such difficu]ties by employing either a ranking or a pairedcomparisons method. Ho'.;cver, neither of those approaches lends itself VvoJl to situations such as the present one.

PAGE 18

4 whore the to-be-ratocl stinuli are transient and where it is in.possiblc for the child to have more their one stimulus before hi'i at a tirae. i^lthouqh this is a less serious driivrback for the paired-corn.parisons approach, v/liere only tv;o stiiruli are considered at once, the time required to obtain paired-couiparison data for tv.'elve stimuli would be prohibitive in a situation such as the present one where ratings on tv;o dimensions are required. The Seia antic Diffe rent ial The Seiiantic Differential (Osgood, Snci and Tannenbaum, 19 57) is a rating technique '.;h:ich provides simultaneous ratings on iieve::nl diraensions of stimuli. The instrument v/as developed and tested extensively by Osgood et. al. as a techniouc to be e iioloyed in the moasureinent: of ccnnotative meaning. Semantic differential studies involvti obt.ainii.g , from a number of subjects, ratings of several concepts or stimuli on a series of bipolar adjective scales. The consistently relevant dimensions of meaning have been determined by moans of factor analyses v.'hich have been coiaputed on thie intercorrelations of the adjective scales. In the typical semantic di f f erenticil study, the intercorrelations are calculated across stimuli and subjects. Such, studios have consistently found that most of the comi^lon variance is accounted for by tliree dimensions or factors: evaluative (50% 75%) , potency (25^-30?;) , and activity (20'b"25%) (Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum, 1957). Typical evaluative scales are good-bad and friendly-unfriendly;

PAGE 19

strong-weak and hard-soft are typical potency scalns, and the activity diiaension ccnisists of scales such a? fast-slov; and active-passive. Previous experiments have enployed the semantic differential to obtain personality ratings on the basis of voice from adult judges (Markel , Meisels, and Houck, 1964; Markel and uoblin, 1965). Markel, Meisels, and Houck (1964) found that on the basis of voice alone schi zoplirenics v;ere judged nore potent than nonschir.ophrcnics . Speakers whora the judges perceived as schiriophrenic were judged more active than those perceived as nonschizophrenic . The aut]:iors interpret the failure to obtain differences on the evaluative diraensioi! of the semantic difforenital as attributable to the constant cor tent employed by all speakers and to the siniilarity of voice set. They agree vritn Trager (1958) in defining voice set as tho:^e aspects of the voice attributable to societal group, sax, age, state of health and location. Markel and Robj in (1965) obtained differences on the evaluative diir.ension, but not on the activity and potency dimensions V7hen judges were instructed to rate the personality of one speaker in three different content conditions. The sex~of~ judge was also found to have a significant effect. The authors concluded that the evaluative dimension reflects a general attitude toward the speaker which results fro-;, the relationship between his voice set and v.-hat he says. The significance of sex-of-judge v.-as attributed to sex differences in responding to inconsistency between voice set and content.

PAGE 20

10 Childron as s ul> j ects .Studies which have investigated the diiaensious of moaning in children of various ages support the contention that it is a fairly consistent varia^xle ('^nia]l, 3 953; Brandv.'in, 1965; Lilly, 1965; Barnard, 1966; Di Vesta, 3966). It has been noted in several studies, hov/ever, that the activity and potency dimensions tend to coalesce v;hen children are erup3oyed as raters (Trraall, 195 8; Brandv/in, 196 5; Barnard, 1966) ^ lAaltz (19ol-!) concluded that the raeaning of coriceprs to childroji beco-.-i-ies stable sometir.ie before the fourth grade in school is reached. Donahoe (1961) investigated the stability of the tliree dinensions sepora'cely and corc3uded that ratings v/ith respect to activity stablize before, or durirg, the first grade in schoo3 ; evaluative ratings sta^:.iiize prior to the thirv." and potency railings betveen the third, and s5>:th years in school. IIov;ever, sonie caution nust be oinployed in interpreting these latter two studies, since both assuituned that the factor loadings of the scales found v;ith adult subjects v.'ould also be obtained '.vith children used as subjects. The findings of Di Vesta and Dick (1966) v.-it;i respect to the reliability of the semantic differential at different age levels do seen to indicate that a general increase in the stability of children's semantic differential ratings occurs betv;een the third and fourth grades. They found "...a definite increase in reliability of ratings made on the semantic differential between the third and fourth grades." Di Vesta and Dick conc3.ude that if twenty children are employed in the rating procedure, the reliability of the

PAGE 21

11 concept", scoret; obtoincd should bo satisfactory . They alfio report that, "All correliiti-onr; are sufficiently higli to indicate the functional utility of separate factor scores, based on only tv/o scales for researcl'j purposes." As js typical in. studies in which the seoantic differential is used to obtain ratings, it v.vts necessary to consider several variables in clioosing the scales for the presei:t. study. The criteria employed in selc^cting scales were as follows: (1) All scales included v/ore selected on the basis of their relevance to rrialring ratings of the personalities of nale speakers. (2) The scales eiriployed v;ere constructed of adjectives v/itV. v;hi ch childreii could be reasonably expect.ed to be familiar. (3) TiK-^ scales were selected in. a manner which assr.red that they loaded consistently on the dimension which they Xv'ere selected to represent. With respect to rhe third criterion, it v/as fir.st necessary to determine which dimensions cf meaninq v/ere relevant to the present study. As was mentioned previously, in most semantic dif fereritial studies, the first factor or dimensions to emerge have been evaluative, potency, and activity. Later factors have been given such names as oriented activity, stability, receptivity, pointedness, and novelty. It has already been noted that when children are employed as subjects in semantic differential studies the activity and potency dimensions merge into one second dimension v;hicii has frequently been labeled dynamism. Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, pp. 13-1 A) observe that the activity and

PAGE 22

^2 potency factoj:s also coalesce into a dynar^irm factor v/hen judgiaents are limited to socic^rol itica] coricepts , that is, people and policies. Since the present study required children to make jvidgy.-ents of people exclusively, it vvas concluded that evaluative and dynanism vere the most critical diiiiensions . Scales were therefore selected for inclusion in the present study if, in previous stud5.es, they had been found to load consistently on either the evaluative or the dynavaism factors and to have small loadings on all other factors. In order to assure that the children would be familiar v.'it'-i all adjectives so selected, the v;ord frequencies established by Thorndike and Lorge (19''14) v.'ere utilized. Thorndike and Lorge recoim;-iend that '.-'ords as frequent as tv/enty per miD.lion be taught to fourth graders, thus children of this age can be expected tcbe faiailiar v/ith v/ordr> of this, or greater, frequency. Table 1 lists the six pairs of bipolar adjectives employed in the present study as -.-/ell as the frequency per million v;crds of the selected adjectives according to the Thorndike and Lcrge ^^ord List and the major factor loadings of the scales according to previous studies \vhich employed children as subjects. Statem.ant of the Problem The purpose of the present study v/as tc test directly the hyootheses emerging form the v;ork v;ith the VQP. It aupears th.at the VOP groups vvhici'. have been defined by a Etructv.ral methodology can also bo defined in functional

PAGE 23

2 3 < Eh V> (U iH CO U w > •H +) O ^ >•) o 4-' o o O C w; C. f— i "^ >, c O n 0) r: n 1-1 o t. o o rH > + o o r-l 0.1 CO o 2 + o o r-H > Q 4o +

PAGE 24

14 terms. Stated simply, if juclgos v/ero as]'.ed to rate the personalities of speakers in each of the three \'Q'^' groups on the basis of voice quality alone, the personalitv descriptions obtained would be expected to differentiate among tlie three VQP groups by means of two behavioral or personality dimensions. The first dimension might be thought of as reflecting ''aggressiveness" and includes those adjectives in the first phrase of the descriptioiis of personality correlates of the three VQ'^ ' s . Tlie second dimen.sion includes those adjectives in the second portion of the descriptions of personality correlates of the three VQP's aiid raight be summarised as "friendliness," It was also believed that investigating the effects of lov; scores, as well as pea): scores on the three qualities, v/ould contribute significantly to an understanding of the relotions'nip between voice and per sona."'.ity . Therefore, this varial.ile v/as included in the design of tlie present study. In order, to obtain additional information on the effects of individxuil differences among the judges, v;hich Kivm-ier has suggested as a critical variable / males and females at three age levels '-/ere employed as raters in the present study. It should be noted that the evaluative and dynamism factors of the semantic differential are quite sindlar to the two dimensions emerging form, the rtudies of personality and VQP. For example, dim.ension 1 was characterized by adjccti->7es such as "reserved" and "withdrawn" at one pcle and "demanding," "controlling," and ^'outgoing" at the other pole.

PAGE 25

15 These adjcctivei; appear to represent the meaninyr. attached to the tv.'o poles of the dynainisn dimension^ Dimension 2 of the VQP personality descriptions included tho ability to give and receive pleasure in relationships vrith people at one pole and dissatisfaction v/itli hur.ian relationships at t}ie other pole. It seems that ratings of people at the poles of dimension 2 v/ould be represented by the poles of the evaluative dimension. For example, friendly unfriendly is a frequent evaluative scale and in the discussion of dimension 2 it was referred to as a friendliness dimension. On tlie basis of previous studies which investigated the relationship betv;een personality and the VQP , the follov;ing hypotheses were framed and tested in the present study: (1) Speakers rated 3s HT and HP on VQP v.'ill be rated as more positivel}valued by judges rating personality than speajTars rated as III, on VQP. (2) Speakers rated a? IIT and HL on Vo? v;ill be rated as n'ore dynar.iic by judges rating persoiiality tlian soealcers rated as TIP on VQP . (3) Speakers whose VQP • s are similar will also receive similar ratings on both the evaluative and the dynainisn dimenoions . The results of the Dimitrovsky (196'!) and Gates (1927) studios indicate that the above hypotheses are more likely to be confirmed among the fenialo and the older subjects. Despite the empirical findings, hov/ever, the contention that younger children discriminate among nonverbal vocal cues better than do older children continues to survive. One reason for this is the fact that the m.ethods eiaployed to obtain the children's ratings were not extensively

PAGE 26

16 doouinented for the age groups involved. It v/as one of the purposes of thj.s study to investigate the effects of sex and aye in judging personality from the voice.

PAGE 27

Chapter II Method The Voices The stinulus voices v;ere obtained from raw data previously collected by Ilarkel (19G9a) . In this study, each of six raters judged the pitch, loudness and tempo of seventyeight voice sarrtples tv;ice. The original voice sainples v.'ere obtained from psychiatric patients who v.'ere instructed to read the follo'v-ing sentence, "Many of the reports received last week shc/od a large increase in earnings.'' Or: thcbasis of these ratings, Markel v/as then able to divide the initial seventy-eight subjects into three VOP r roups : P~P , P-L, and P-T. Kach voice v/as assigned to the profile grou;:' v.'hich represented the voice quality for which the highest T" score had been obtained. 7hese three groups differed significantly frora each other both in terns of VOP and MIIPI profile . A possible criticism of Markel ' s approach is that it fails to evaluate the effects of extreme ratings on the three qualities. That is, a voice nay be defined as "peak" on a quality yet obtain a relatively lov; absolute rating on that particular quality . In addition, th.e possible correlates of lov; ratings on the voice qualities are not evaluated. These considerations, and the need to f;xplcre the effects of 17

PAGE 28

18 voice qualities v;ith a Gnallor nuiTiber of stinulus voices, led to the decision to select the voices for this study in the follov/ing nanner: tv/o high and tv;o lov; voices for each quality were included. In order to bo classified as high on quality A, a voice was required to obtain a T-scorc at least 1.5 standard deviations above the mean (T-score = 65) on quality A and betv;een plus and minus 1.0 standard deviations (T-score = 40 60) on qualities R arid C. The saice requireir.ents were employed in establishing other high and lov; stimulus voices . In selecting the twelve voices from the original seventy-eight, an attempt was also made to match the high and lov,' voices for a particular queility v;ith respv^ct to ratings on the other tv/o qualities. That is, the tv/o High Pitch {}iP} voices v/ero matched v;ith the two Lov; Pitch (L'l^) voices v;ith respect to loudness and tempo. Since the limited sample fro;a which the tv.'elvo voices v;ere chosen made this procedure difficult, the voices v;ere divided into two sets, v/ithtiio voices v.'hich v;ere more closely matched being included in Set I. Markel (1969b), in an unpublished study, also obtained pitch, loudness and tempo ratings using a direct magnitude estimation technique. The correlations between the original and D.M.E. T-scores are above .85 for all three voice qualities. Table 2 presents the pitch, loudness, and tempo T--scores of the tv;o sets of six voices v/hich. v.'ere obtained in the tv.'o rating conditions.

PAGE 29

19 TATTLE 2 Original and Direct Magnitude Estiiiation T-ncores Voice

PAGE 30

20 Subjects Subjects for this study T\?ere students fror.i the University of Florida Laboratory School. Approxinately SOS of the children enrolled in the scJiool are children of professors at the University of Florida. The rer^iainder of the students are drav/n from the city of Gainesville and other coraraunities in Alachua County. The professional groups are higlily represented in the parents of the children which raay account for the fact that, as a group, the children in the Laboratory School score higher on various ability tests than other children in the state. Ability test scores v/ere obtained from the school records in order to balance the experimental groups v.'ith respect to this variable. Tn addition, birthdates were obtaiiiOd for al2 subjects. Six of the experir/iental groups made judgr.ients on the eva].uative scales and six of then raade dynamism ratings. The elementary school groups, t'-'o groups of males (ELP.) and t'/o groups of females (FL'^) , 'vere composed of fourth and fifth graders; eighth and ninth graders v/ere sampled to obtain the junior high m.ales (Jl^M) and the junior high females (JRF) ; and eleventh and tv/elfth grade males and females v/ere seimpled to obtain the senior high males (SPH) and females (SRF) . Ability test mean percentile scores £ind standard deviations are presented in Table 3. The percentiles vere based on national norms of the California Test of T'ental .'laturity for the fourth, fifth and eight grades and of the School and College abilities Test for the ninth, eleventh

PAGE 31

21 TABLE 3 i'leans and Standard Deviations of Percentile Placement on Ability Tests for the Twelvci Subject Groups EvaluatiV2

PAGE 32

22 and tv;e.lftli cracles. Table 4, presents the neaus and standard deviations of the ages of the tv;elve subject grouv^s. Tables 3 and 4 present data only on sulDJocts actually eraployed in the analysis ^ Aijility test scores v.'ere not available for al] subjects and age data was not available for one subject in ths SRF group. Thus, in tai^les 3 and 4 the N of several groups is less than twenty. Table 5 presents the data v;it)i regard to discarded subjects in each of the twelve subject groups. As can bo seen froin the table, subjects were discarded from each of the groups on the basis of ability test percentile scores in order to equate the groups v^ith respect to this variable. Procedure The seraantic differential v/as adriin i sterod to all children in one of their regular classroc'.ts during the school day. Tiiere v;cre t'-.'o classrcoras for each grade, 'vith approximately thirty students in each class. Cne section of each grade rated all twelve voices on the three evaluative scales; the remaining section rated the tvyelve voices on the three dynanism scales. This approach liirtited the nunher of ratir^gs v.'hich. any individual subject made to thirty-six and limited the possible effects of boredom on the ratings. In addition, thorough such a procedure, the independence of evaluative and dynaraisn ratings was assured. The form of the seir^antic differential e'aployed required the children to rate all tv;elve voices on one sc?. le before beginniri'-i the ratings ox\ another. It was felt that

PAGE 33

TA13LE 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Subject Aye in Months for the Tv.'elve Subject Groups

PAGE 34

24 w (0 (i O o 4J o Q> •n XI 3 > % E-t o "^i CO ro r-) ci !dd fo c; r-) f) (O m 13 vr :n rH LT, f") CM r. fO rH O? Ni' LO cj; ^fc rH O rH C i-O CN tl^O O C C-> C O lo 00 CO LT) 03 c^ r~ CN r^J c\ rg tN CM ^ in o "^^ r 1 r00 lO |c5^ CM CN ."O rj r-j oj ['-n ^ ^ s a ^; e^ W W •-; c< ?: t s r^ P^ K K iX >-D f-D a; w

PAGE 35

?.5 thiFi app::oach v/ou.ld ninini7,e any "halo effects" in the ratings and would nllov; the children to form cind maintain the desired set in making the ratings. /ll instructions and the twelve stimulus voices were recorded on a tape prior to the experinc):it6l sessions to ^4.'proxi^.late identical conditions in all groups. The iiistructions wore raodificd from those employed by Tiarkel and Hamo (19 60) . Twelve taoes were recorded in all. Each began with a "dubbed" recording of the instructions and was followed by three different, randoiv. orders of tlie tv/clve stimulus voices. r^.pproxiraately ten seconds elapsed betv/eon the voices in e3.ch set of tv/elve in order to aliov; tine for the voice to be rated. A different random order of the voices was constructed for each of the thirty-six experimental presentations of the voices by reference to a table of random numbers . Another; aspect of the presentation in v'hich ordering effects were important was the interand intra-scaJo ordering. Since tlie three evaluative scales and the three dyncimism scaler; were each presented to six groups of children, it was possibD.e to present each of the six possible orderings of the scales to one of the six groups. ']'o counterbalance with respect to intra-scale ordering, three groups wade the evaluative and dynamism ratings v;ith the positive pole of the bipolar scales presented on the left. Three of the six groups making each type of rating rated tlic voices on bipolar scales on v/hich the positive pole was printed on the right.

PAGE 36

D ata Anc^.ly 3 i £ Numerical valv.os of 1-7 were assigned to the seven categories of the six scales. The dyna^"nic and positively valued poles of the scales v/ere assigned the nuinerical value of one and the opposite poles were assigned the numerical value of 7. The means of the ratijigs of the twelve voices on the three scales were then coviputed for each subject. Tliis resulted in the tv/elve scores obtained for each subject. One exception to this procedure was due to tile inadvertent ommission of the I.T'^ voice araong the voices rated on the D.argo-sriall scale by the ninth grade. Becauf.G of this oversight, the LP2 rieaji v;as computed froiri only tv;o scales for those ninth graders naking ratings on the Qynarr.ism scales. The data were analyzed in two analyses of variance. Each analysis v/as conducted as a 2 x 2 y. 12 repeated measureiucnts design with repeated meeisurovuents ov.ir the third factor. This design is discus£.GC })y Uiner (1962, 337-347). The two levels of factor A v/ere sex-ofjudge , the three levels of factor B v/ere the three age levels (EL, JR, and SR) and the tv/elve levels of factor C vv'ere the tv;elvo voices.

PAGE 37

Chapter Til Results livaluative Results Table 6 presents the results of the analysis of variance of the evalucitivc ratings. As can be seen from the table, F tests on the C main e fleet an:,! the AC and JiC interactioiis v:ere significant, v/hile tests cii other main effects and interactions v;cre ?ioL. These findjnc-s indicate that the sobjeci's c'.nployed iij the present study discrinii nated araong the tv/elvt voices en the evaluative dinvension. Farther, che pattern ot these discriminations V'?;:ied V7i th both the sex and age of the rater. Tabic 7 presents the mean ratings of the twelve voices by the three age groups and by the males and females. The AC meaiis are plotted in ^''igure 1 and the BC T.eans are plotted in Figure 2. As can be seen in botri figures < the differ en ces :>2t'-/eeri ratings of voices c^f the sa^ne type v;ere large. Also, contrary to the firudings expected, v/ere the; highly positive ratings of the UL voices. This finding is directly contradictory of hypothesis 1. The initial prediction was that IIT and VV speahers v;ould be rated as more positively valued than ''L speaVvers. Because of this, the planned comparison of the L'T, T'P and HL voices vas not corjoleted. The null hypothesis, 27

PAGE 38

28 TABLE 6 ?inal^'sj.3 of Variance of 'lof,n Eva] ueitivr: Patlncis SoarcG: Mean v^cruarrSex (A)

PAGE 39

29 en .H +f.' c o Xi V) c •H < o c; vi > ^ r-' E-; Ci •: O P -P X! o c to tn u: C G) •H H X"^ ^ o > o •H ^:: -P JJ > C fC O CN (Nl (N 1-^ Ci CN r-H rg o VI' V!' r^

PAGE 40

30 6.00 Negatively Valued O — O Level 1 of A (Males) G — O Level 2 of A (Feniales} i.OO HI Eh 1 4.00 .„:;^.._.JL,..l 3 00 Positively Valued 2.00 I 2 I 2 LP I ML I 2 L I I 2 ! 5 T IV The Tvrelve Voices P'iaure 1 THe Sox X Voice Inter action of the Evaluative i^jialysis

PAGE 41

31 6.00 Negatively Valued 0--C Level 1 of B (EJ,) 0--O Level 2 of B (JR) O ©Level 3 -of P (SP) 5.00 H E-i H 3.00 ^\T\o 1 o Positively Valued 5.00 MP LP ML L L 1 2 LT The Tv/elve Voices Figure 2 The Age X Voice Interaction of the Evaluative Analysis

PAGE 42

32 HO: (H^ + H?2 ''' ^"^l + ^T 2 ) -2 (iTLj + HlTj) > 0, v.'ould o35vious]y oa retaiiied at all ].evels of A and ^. Ins?pection of Figure ] indicates that the sex by voice-: interaction vzas primarily a function of differences betv'ecn the males and females in the ratings of the high and lo-,'7 loudness voices. Figure 2. indicates that the age by voice interactionalso reflected differences in the ratings of the loudness voices and tlie HP and LT ratings as well. Figures 1 and 2 also shov: that the feraales and the elementary group tended to rpiake the most extreine rcitings of the nil and LI. voices. The Newraan-Keuls technique (Winer, 19G?; 309-31.0) was u?;ed. to test differences ancng the oi-dered voice raeans at the t\-jo levels of ?. and t'nre.it levels of B. These tests were conducted in ordei to evaluate hypothesis 3 '.-/hich v/ai:; that voices of similor vc'i.ce type v/ou.ld also receive sixnilar evaluative and dynamisn ratings. The results of these tests are presented scheneiticaily in Figure 3. Voice n\eans, which are underlined by coitmon lines in this figure, were not found to be significantly different at the alpha level irdiccited. However, because differeiiCes av.ong voices of the same voice type v;ere obtained, it is difficult to interpret differences between voices of different voice types. As can be seen fron\ Figure 3, of the thiri:y comparisons made between voices of the same type, all but three were significant at the .0] level. Tr.us, with resT;'ect to evaluative ratiiigs hypothesis 3 r.iust be rejected. In order to evaluate the effect of voice type,

PAGE 43

33 <-<

PAGE 44

34 despite the large differences between voices of the same type, the voice type means v/ere calculated. Table 8 presents the voice type means for the nales and females and for the three age groups. Figure 4 is a plot of the voice type means at the tv/o levels of A; and the voice type means at the three levels of B are presented in Figure 5. Figure 4 sho\;s that the evaluative ratings of both the males and the females discriminated most betv;een the HL and the LL voice types. Both sexes rated HL voices tov^ard the positive pole of the evaluative dimension and LL voices tovard the negative pole. ^Jith regard to both the KL and the LL voice types, the ratings of the females were more extreme than those of the males. Differences between the high and low pitch and the high and lev; tempo voice tyoes v.-ere much sm.allcr, as were the differences between the male and female ratings of these four \'oice types. As can be seen in Figure 5, the evaluative ratings of the six voice types display a clear developmental trend. In general, the EL age group discriminated most among the voice types, while the SR age group discriminated least. In all cases, the ratings of the JR age group fell betv:een those of the EL and SR age groups. Figure 5 also shor/s that v/hile the EL age group attached a negative evaluation to LP and LT speakers and a positive evaluation to KP speakers, just the reverse vras true of the SR age group. Because the evaluative analysis so clearly showed that the HT and HP voices vrere not more positively valued than the HL voices as originally hypothesized, ai' examination

PAGE 45

35 cc S 0)

PAGE 46

36 6.00 negat I vely val ued o level 1 of A (males) o level 2 of A (females) 5.00 ^. < 4.00 3.00 --o < LlI < 2: pos 1 1 i ve 1 y va! ued 2.00 HP I I I LP ill LL The Six Voice Types MT Figure k Plot of the Voice Type Means at the Two Leve 1 s of A of the Evaluative Analysis

PAGE 47

37 6.00 Negatively Valued 0--0 Level 1 of B (EL) O O Level 2 of B (JP) C^ — •'> Level 3 of B (SR) 5.00 > H S < 4.00 3.00 Posil ively Valued 2.00 UP 1 1 i 1

PAGE 48

38 of the voices in terins of voice quality profile (vnp) \.7as made. Table 2 above shov;s that four voices of each VQP v;ere included in tiie present study. The voices included in each profile group v/ere as follov;s: P-P: }I^, . HP , LL^ and I.Tt : l22 -L P-L: LP-,^, IIL-j^, I'L2, LT2 ; P~T : LT^2 » ^M. > "'^l ^^-^ ''To. Table 9 presents the mean evaluative ratings of the three VQP's made bytJie three age groups and by the males and females. Figure 6 is a plot of the VQP moans at the tv;o levels of A. The VQP means at the three levels of B are presented in Figure 7. Figures 6 and 7 shov; that, although differences anong the VOt>'s were not large, amor.g the males and the older chijdren there v/as a tendency for the P-L profile voices to receive negative ratings. These same subject groups also tended to ra':e the P-T voices toward the positive pole of the evaluative diraension. Dynamism Result s Table 10 presents the results of the analysis of variance of the dynaraisrn ratings. ,As can be seen frc^i the table, F tests on the B and C main effects and the AC and PC interactions v/ere significant. These findings indicate that the pattern of discrimineitions among the voices on the basis of the dynamism dimension varied with both the age and sex of the rater. Table 11 presents the means obtained from ratings of the tv;elve voices made by the three age groups and the males and females. The AC means are plotted in Figure 8 and the BC means are plotted in Figure 9. The figures show that

PAGE 49

39
PAGE 50

40 6.00 Negatively Valued C C Level 1 of A (Males) O O Level 2 of D (Females) IS < W 5.00 4.0 D 3.00 Positively Va3uod 2.00 I I P-T The Three Voice Quality Profiles F'igure 6 Plot of the Voice Quality Profile Means at the Tv7o Levels of A of the Evaluative Analysis

PAGE 51

6.C0 Negatively Valued . 0--0 Level 1 of B (TL) oo Level 2 of B (JR) «^° Level 3 of B (SR) 5.00 H E-i < 4.00 3.00 Positively Valued 2.O0 I P-P I P-L P'T The Three Voice Quality Profiles Figure 7 Plot of the Voice Quality Profile -Means at the Three Levels of B of the Evaluative /inalysis

PAGE 52

t;vble 10 Analysis of Variance of Mean Dynaraisn Ratings 42 Source Mean Square; df Sex (A)

PAGE 53

43 (fl

PAGE 54

44 6.00 Mon-Dynainic O O Level Level oi of A (Males) (Females) 5.00 M Eh t5 400 3.00 2.00 I 2 2 I 2 I 2 I 1 MP LP in. L L vn l.Y The Tv;elve Voices Figure 8 The Sex X Voice Interaction of the Dynamism 7>j"ialysis

PAGE 55

45 6.00 non-dynarrii c 0---0 Level I of B (LL) o o Level 2 of B (JP.) o o Level 3 of B (SR) < < 5.00 ^..003.00 dynani 2 00 I c ) I I I t I I I I 12 12 12 1 2 1 I 2 UP LP HL LL The Tv/elvc Voices 13 T 2 LT F i gure 9 The Acje X Voice Inleraction of th:-^ Dyne-ii srr, Analys i 5

PAGE 56

46 intra-voice type differences were riuch snaller than intervoice type differences. Inspection of Figure 8 indicates that the sex by voice type interaction v^as pril^larily attributable to differences between males and females in the rating of high and lov; loudness voices. There was an overaj.l trend, hoT'/ever, for the females to make ratings, relative to the male ratings, toward the dynamic pole on the IIP, IIL and HT voices and toward the non-dynamic nolo on. the LP, LL and LT voices. The plot of the age by voice interaction in Figure 9 sho\vs that sizeable differences occurred among the age groups './ith regard to the ratings of several of the voices. The Kev^rian-Keuls technique (Viner, 19G2; 309-310) v/as used to test ditfexences among the ordered age grouo means at each of the levels of C. The results of these tesrs are presented schematically in Figure 10. Age group means which share a common underlining v;ere not found to be significantly different at the .05 level. As can be seen in Figure 10, significant differences among the age groups were found at eight of the tv/elve levels of C. Figure 9 shov;s that the EL age group tended to rate the v.V , LP and HL voices more tov/ard the dynam.ic pole than did either of the other two age groups. T'nis tendency may have accounted for the significant B main effect. Figure 10 shcv/s that, of the seven instances in v/hich two of the ago groups v.'ere significantly different from the remaining ago group but rot from each other, tv/o involved differences between the vTR age group aj;d tlie other tv7o . Although such results do

PAGE 57

47 Level 1 ofC B-, B-^ B-, {up^} -*'Level 2 of C Bi Bo Bo (H-2) -^^ " Level 7 of C B-^ Bp B^ ( LLj^ ) Level 8 of C B3 B-i By (LL2) Level 3 of C B-] B-^ B2 (LPi) -^^ Level 4 of C Bi B-, B-) (LP2) --'—•-i Level 9 of C Po Bi B-3 (HTi) -^^-^ Level 10 of C B3 B-, B2 (HT2) ~" Level SofCBi Br> Bo (HLi) 'Level 6 ofC Bi B-, Bo (KL9) -^ ^ Leve]. 11 of C Bo Bi B3 (LTi) " '—^ Level 12 of C ^o Bj B3 (LT2) ~" Figure 10: Schematic Presentation of the Nev;ir>an-Keuls Tests on The Ordered Age Group Dynaniem Keans [Means i.-hich Shara a CcnCTion Line were not Significantly Different at the .05 alpha Level.]

PAGE 58

48 not make a hy}:)Cthesis of a clevelopmontal trend in the ratings untenable, neither do they offer strong support to sucli a hypothesis. •. The significant ?C and HC interactions necessitated evaluating hypothesis 2 by corapuring the planned co:aparisons among the dyna'aism ratings of the H?, HL and IIT voices at the tv.'O levels of A and the three levels of 13. rive t-tests v^ere eraployed to test Vie follov;ing directional hypotliesis: HO: (HLj^ + FL2 + HT-j^ + HT o ) -2 {VT^i + W^-^) > 0. "''if^ null hypothesis v.'as rejected at all levels of A and beyond the .001 level, one tailed. Thus, the high loudness and high tenpo voices v/ere rated by al] groups as more dynamic than the high pitch voices. The Nev;jrian-ICeuls technique (':'iner, 1962; 309--310) was used to test differences av.ong the or;l3red voice type means at tlie t\vo levels of A and the t'nree levels of B . The results cf these tests are piresented schematically in Figure 11. Voice type means which share a common underlining were not found to be significantly different at tlie .01 level. Figure 11 sliov/s that across all subject groups stable differences were found bet\'/een high and loi; loudness and high and lov/ tempo voices. In all cases, the HL and IIT voices were rated as more dynamic that the LI. arid LT voices. The findings v/ith regard to HP and LP voices were less consistent, but there v;as a general tendency for the LP voices to be rated as more dynamic thaii the PP voices. As a moans of evaluating hypothesis 3, ^-/hich stated that voices of similar voice type './ould also receive similar

PAGE 59

/i9

PAGE 60

50 evaluative and dynamism ratings, the results of the New.ianKeuls tests vitb. respect to voices of the same typo v.'ero examined. In order to state v-ith more certainty that true differences between voices of the same type v;ore not ignored, tests v/ere also computed vith alpha set at .10. Table 12 presents the significance levels obtained for the coraparisons of voices of the same type at the tv/o levels of A and the three levels of B. 7i.s can be seen from the Table, significant differences between the two HP, the tv/o IlL and tlie tv;o HT voices v/ere fairly consistently found across the levels of A and E. 7it least v/ith rega.rd to the dynainism ratings of these three voice types, the data of the present study did iiot support hypothesis 3. The data in Table ].2, however. ter:dea to ccnfinu hypothesis 3 v.'ith regard to the LT and L'^ voice types and v;ith regard to the EL age group. In order to obtain a. more reliable estimate of the contribution of voice type, the voice type means v/ere calculated. Table 13 presents the voice type means for the males and fem.ciles and for tiie three age groups. Figure 3.2 is a plot of the voice type means ci.t the two levels of A; the voice type moans at the three le^'ols of B are plotted in Figure 13. F'igure 12 sho--/3 that sex differences in the ratings v/ere small and that both sexes rated HP, LL and LT voices toward the non-dynaniic pole and L^ , HL and HT voices toward the dynamic polo. For both sexes, the most extreme ratings v;ere assig-aed to tJie high and low loudness voices,

PAGE 61

51 CN o

PAGE 62

52 < w

PAGE 63

5 3 6,00 Kon-Dynamic ^ — ^> La vol 1 of h (I''-a].os) 0---0 Level 2 of A (Females) 5.0 D H Q 4.00 3.00 Dynamic 2.00 UP LP I HI I LL KY I LT Thr: Six Voicr^ Types Figure 12 Plot of the Voice Type Means at the Two Iievels of A of tha Dynanism Ar.aly.sis

PAGE 64

6.00 NonDynamic e— O Level 1 of B (EL) 0....O Level 2 of R (JP.) Q ^ Level 3 of B (FR) 5.00 r D 4.003.00 Dynamic

PAGE 65

55 v;hile the least extreme rat-iiigs v/ere assigned to the high and lo
PAGE 66

56 ^ < w

PAGE 67

57 6.00 Non-DynaiTii c o— o Level ] of A (niales) ct---o Level 2 of A (females) 5.00 4.00 — C3 CO < z >< ui 2: 3.00 Oynami c 2.00 P-L I The 1 hfee Voice Quality Profiles Figure 1^ Plot of the Voice Ouality Profile Means at the Tv;o Levels of A of the Dynarni s;n An^ 1 ys i s

PAGE 68

58 6.00 Non-Dyn-D:nic O— OLcvcl 1 of B (EL) O OLevel 2 of 3 (JR) O OLevel 3 of B (SR) 5.00 C3 V< a: < >4.00 .00 Dynami c 2.00 p-p p-i, :>~Y The Three Voice Quality Profiles Figure 15 Piot of the Voice Quality Profile Means at the Three Levels of B of the Dynami sm Ana 1 ys i s

PAGE 69

59 rated as dynar.'ic and the I'-T VO^ \>'as ciGnorally rated ay dynamic but less dynamic than tlie P-I, V^n.

PAGE 70

Chanter ^v Discussion The extfent to v.'hich the findings of any study can be generalized is dcpendeiit upon the subjects deployed, t'ne variables sanpled and the methods used. In the present study, both niales and females v;ere employed as subjects ajid three different age levels of children '-/ere sar:\pled. The poj.iulaticn frcni v.'Iii.cj) these chi].dren were dravii, hov.'ever, included a high percentage, of the children of professional peor,]e and, per liaps as £i result, the children tended, as a crou~', to score hirjh on standard ainlity tests. Strieker and Zax (1S6G) report tnat the ability cc utilize ajl se'v'en points of semantic differential scales is related to intelligence anong children in the fourth and eight grades but not the tv^elfth grade. Thus, interpretations of flnciings with regard to the EL and JP. groups are linited by this variable. Other limiting factors in the nresent study include tne i:echniaue employed to obtain the judgmcrits and the limited sample of all male voices which the children rated. The findings' of previous studies with regard to the evaluative and dynf^'ism dii.iensions indicate that they are the most cr"itica]. ones for obtainir.g judgments from children, especially when people arc; being rated.. Previous studies 6

PAGE 71

CI ^ v.'erc cil5:o utilized to select individual scalos. It snould be noted hc)\.'over, tliat the results reflect only group stereotypes and do not provide iiiforniation about individual siibjoct responses to the separate speakers. In addition, it is not possible to make staterrients about all possible corrbinations of pitch, loudness and tempo nor about the possible effects of other voice qualities . Sex Differences The sex~ofjudg^;; affected both the dynaraisni and evaluative r?tino5. In both analyses, the nain effect of sex v/as not significant, v/nile the interaction of sex-ofjudcjc v;itb. voice v/as. In general, this finding v;as artril^utable to the extreme ratings made by the females, especially of the IIL and LI. voices^ Doth males and females judged nen who spoke loudly to be no''*e dynarr.ic and more nositively valued than P'len .'.'ho spoke c-oftly. Goodencugh. (1957) found that, in our culture, females, more than males, are enccairaged to attend to t]:e expressive behavior of others. That females would be more able than males to mak.e discriminations of ir'.diviaual differences on the basis of voice alone, is a logical extrapolation from these findings. Dimitrovs};y (1964) found this to be the case in a study v/liich required children to select the intended emotion of speakers on the basis of voice a.lone. The correct-incorrect dichotoray employed by Dimitrovr.)cy is not clearly applicable to the present study. However, the hypothesis, with regard to the dynamism ratings

PAGE 72

62 of the six voice typec was confirned by the rcfutlts of the present study. Thus, one v.'ay in v.'liich the ratings can be viewed as correct or incorrect is to consider the follov.'ing as correct ratings: (1) dynaiaic: LP^ IiL and HT and (2) nondynamic: HP, LL and LT. This systen is essentially a restatement of the original hypotliesis reg^irding the dynaniisra ratings. Reinsp^cting the voice tyn^e neans reveals that, although all difforerices are small, the females' responses are extrene in the correct direction '-.'ith regard to the HL, I,L, HT and I.T voice type and the responses of the males and extrerae in the correct direction with regard to the H? and LP voice types. Thus, it appears that the fcnales are riore sensitive to loudnCoS and te:npo differences v/iiile tlie ;aales are more sensitive to differences in pitch. Sex differences in the evaluative ratings of the voices wore much larger, Differerces with regard to the pitch and tempo voice types were s;iall, v/hile tlie ratings of the two loudness voice types shov;ed a definite interaction v;ith the sex factor. The females made more extreme ratings than did the males of both the HL and the LL voice tvjves. Age Differericos The ratings of the voices on both the evaluative and the dyna:riisn dir.iensions v;ere affected by the age of the judge. In the evaluative analysis, the ago by voice interaction was sigiiif icant , v.'hile in the dynamis;a analysis both the interaction of age v;ith voice and the main effect of age were sigr.if icant . Further, the nature of the age

PAGE 73

63 difforences in the evaluative analyrjis v;as sirjcjcstive of a developmental trend in the ratings. In practically all cases, the nean evaluative ratings of the voices by the middle age group (JR) separated the mean ratings of the voices made by the oldest (SR) and the youngest (EL) age groups. The few exceptions to this pattern occurred v/ith respect to voices which elicited small differences in the ratings of the three ago groups. When the data v.'ere converted to voice tvpe means rather than individual voice means, the developnental pattern v/as clear across al]. voice types. 7^.11 three age groups evdluated loud (I!L) speakers as positively valued and quiet or soft (I.L) speakers as negatively valued. None of the age groups judged the fast (IIT) speakers to be either positively or negatively valued. Kovever, the youngest children (TL) rated those who spoke slo-;].y (LT) as nngatively valued and the olde,?t children (SF.) rcted slo'^^ sp-ak.ers (LT) as positively valued. similarly, v;hile the EI. age group rated UP speakers as positively valued and LP speakers as negatively valued, just the reverse v/as true for the SP. age gxoun. It seems possible that the difference obtained between the EL and PP age groups in the ratings of the KP and LP voices, might be attributable to the fact that elementary school children spend much of their time v:ith females. Characteristically, the voices of females arc higher in pitch than the voices of males and the ^JL age group rated U^ voices as positively valued. Another ex'.>lanc.tion for the results is that even the boys in elementary school typically

PAGE 74

64 have high pitched voices tyienselvcs , Parhai^'S the negative evaluation of: the LT sj^eakers by the EL age. group reflects the characteristically higlier activity level of children of this age. Older children, on the oth.er hardware tyoically raore reflective and perhaps this accounts for the value they place upon a low tempo in speech. Perhaps the most striking difference airiong the dynciitiism ratings of the three age groups v/as that the EL age group responded more consistently to voice type in judging the voices than did the other two age grouns . The ratings of the former age group differentiated less betv.'con voices of the same voice type. This result seems scm.cv/hat inconsistent with the finding.-;^ of both Gates (1927) and Dimitrovsky (1964) . In both st'^dies older children wore superior to yon.iiger childrer in judgin'j the intended e"iocion of the speaker on the basis of voice alone. As previously raentioned, a correct-incorrect dichotomv car: be extrapolated from hypothesis 2 of the present studv. The system requires that correct respoiises be defined as follows: (1) dynamic: LP, HL and liT and (2) non-dynamic: HP, LL and LT . Coaoaring the three age groups v/ith the dichotoiny in mind reveals that v/hen significant differences occur am.ong the age groups, the EL group's rating of the voices is always in the correct direct ioji. Thus, in the present study, the youngest children employed v/ere more often correct in making tbe dynamism ratings . The Gates (1927) and Dimitrovsky (1964) studies, as did the present one, required the children to rate the

PAGE 75

65 voices via e. primarily verbal methodology. The methodologies employed in the earlier studies were developed specifically for that purpose. The semantic differential, the rating method employed in the present study, in contrast, has previously been extensively validated for the age groups included. Thus, it seems likely that younger children did not do as well as older children in the earlier studies because of an inability to express the discriminations v/hich they made, rather than an inability to make the required discriminations. In fact, Gates (1927) noted that the youngest children in her study had difficulty understanding th:o instructions. In general, the present, study offers empirical support to the theory that young children are particularly sensitive to nonverbal vocal cues. Vo ice Type and Voice Quality Pr of i le One purpose of the r)rcsent study '-/as to determine if functional or personality ratings of voices v/ould differentiate the voices in a pattern similar to the shructvirr?J. or voice quality ratings „ The evaluative analysis revealed that although the subjects discriminated among the twelve voices, it could not be concluded that differences obtained resulted from differences among the six voice types. This v;as true because significant differences were consistently found between voices of the same voice type. The failure to obtain consistent differences on the evaluativ.; dim-.^nsion among voices of different voice types is in c-greenent ^^;ith the findings of Markel and Roblin (1965) . They found

PAGE 76

66 differences on the evaluatj.ve dimension but not tb.c activity and potency dimensions when voice quality and voice set were held constant. These differences, ho'.;ever, V7ere attributable to content variations inconsistent with the speaker's voice set. Markel, Meisels, and Houck (196-1) found no differences among speakers on the evaluative dimension v/heji voice set and content were constant. Sijice content and voice set v/ere constant in the p.rosent study, the differences obtained cannot be attributed to these variables . In the Markel and Rob.lin study all r^'tinrjs v?ere made on just one speaker. Ratings in t!ic 'larkel/ Meisels and Houck study were moan rating:;; of groups. In the present study, on the other hand, the individual ratings of several speakers were eraploycd. Thus, u.nlike the other studies discussed above, the present study could be affected by varia Lions iii voice qualities other than pitch., loudness and tempo . P
PAGE 77

67 was not confirmed v/hon the voice typo data v:oro examined. With respect to the dynamism ratings the relationship betv7een the structural ratings, and the functional ratings of the voices is more consistent v.'ith the original hypotheses, i^.l though otJier variables perhaps other voice qualities, affected the dynamism ratings of the voices, few subject groups made intravoice type differentiations cimong the LP and LT voice types. In addition, v?it]i the exception of the IIP and HT voice lanes, the EL age group did not significantly differentiate betv/een voices of the same voice type . Hypothesis 2, that HL and HT voices vrould be rated as more dynaraic than IH' voices, was confirrieo. Thus, net only did tiie dynamism rating i? reflect a functional discrimination among the structural types but also the pattern of discrininations was that v/bich v/as predicted froin previous studies. That i.s, loud and fast speakers were rated as stronger, larger and faster than speakers vho3e voices v/ero high in pitch. The most critical finding with regard to the LL and LT speakers was that they received ratings on the dynamism dimension v;hich were just the reverse of the IIL and IIT ratings respectively. In addition, ail subject groups rated the L^ voice type as laore dynamic than the HP voice type. When the dync'inism ratings were combined on the basis of the voice quality profiles, the pattern of ratings suggested by hypothesis 2 was clear. 1'he P-L and P-T voices were rated as dynaiTiic, v;hile the ?-P voices v;ere rated as non~dynajnic. With the exception of ;:hc SR age group, the

PAGE 78

68 VQP means indicated that the P-L speakers v/ere more d7jia:-ric than the P-T speakers. The SR age group differentiated very little between the P--L and P-T VQP groups. In general; t)ie subject groups consistently rated the PJP and PIL voice types good, fair and intjortant, and the LL voice type bad, unfair and not iiaportant. The PIL and PIT voice types v;ere rated strong, fast ixnQ large, and the PIP, LL and LT voice typos v/ere rated v/eak, slow and small. Thus, males who speak ].ovidly or with a high pitched voice are valued while males who speak softly arc not, and males who speak loudly or qui.ckly are seen as laore dvnamic than males v;ho speak slowly, softly, or have hig'n pitched voices. Inpl i cations for Fi yfcu.r e Research J^Ji interesting finding of the present study '.'.'as the pov;erful effect of loudness en the ratings. On the basis of these findings, it seems likely that detailed investigations of loudness alone would be fruitful. In view of the fact that accurate, immediate feedback of intensity levels can be obtained mechanically, this variable could be investigated thorough, many other methodologies. The data also suggested that investigations of voice qualities in females v/ould be a valuable contribution to the area. It was hypothesized that, in our cul t-.ure , a dynamic man is also positively valued and that the evaluative ratings reflected this cultural bias. It seems logical to expect different patterns to emercre if female speakeis are emploved.

PAGE 79

69 The x"atincjs of the; voicer. in the prasent study v/ereaf fecteci by varinblea other than the voice qualities includoc. Since the study controlled for both voice set £ind content differences, it oceins qi\ite likely that the uncontrolled variables v/ero other voice qualities. Especially with regard to evaluative ratings, the data of the present study suggest that these qualities may be extrenely important. There are a variety of reasons for investigating the relationship between voice and personality through r.iet.hods other than the one employed in the present study. The semantic differential is not reliable fojchildren youiiger than eight, yet tliis study indicates that young children arc sensitive to differences m voice quality. Thus, a metiiOGology vhich a].lo-7ed the use of even younger subjects v;ou].d be of value. It has previoasly been mentioned that the data of tl-iis study \'ere group stereotypes of the different voice tyj^-es. Although data regarding groups is an important aspect of psychology, a methodology v;hich provided reliable information with regard to individual responses to the voice types would be desirable. Finally, of course, results which are indenondent of the methodology employed, are very unlikely to be spurious. An cipprcach v.'iiich wouZd deal simultaneously v/ith several of the limit at icnj; of the methodology erriployed in the present study is to investigate voice and personality via an oper/uit raethodology . For example, loudness might be investigated by olotaining, from rhe same person, severe:-! speech samples identical in all respects except the loudness.

PAGE 80

70 These stirauli could then be employed as subsequent events for as many operants on v;hich a baseline liad previously been obtained. Thus, in an operant study, changes in the rate of an operant would define the reinforcing properties of the different loudness levels. Such a nethodology v/ould make it possible to employ pre-schoolers, and even infants, in voice and personality studies.

PAGE 81

Chapter V Summ ary One purpose of this study v/as to test directly hypotheses emerging from the work of .'larkel and liis students on the voice quality profile (Vop) . Six voice types were also defined in order to gain further information about high and low scores on pitch, loudnesrand tempo, the three qualities included in previous Vop studies. Thus, the six voice typ-ir:, included ^;ero as follo.'s: high pitch (iir) , lev/ oitch (LP) , higli loudness (HL) , lov.' loudness (LI-) , high t'..:apo (!..T) and low te:npo (I.T) . A second purposeof the study watto investigate age and sex dif fe/. ei\ces in judging personality frcin the voice. Two aale speakers of each voice type were rated by a] 1 subjects. T'urce evaluative scales (e.g. "good-bad") and three dynanisia scales (e.g. "large-snail") from Osgood's Seraantic Differential v/ere used to obtain th.e ratings. The twelve voices were rated en the three evaluative scales by 120 raales and females in the fourth, fiit':), eighth, ninth, eleventh and tv/eifth grades. A sir\ilar group rated the twelve voices op. the three dynai.iism scales. The evf-;luative and dynamism ratings were analyzed in separat-.e repeated neasui"ements analyses of variance. Individuc:! subject scores v;cre the mean ratings made by the 71

PAGE 82

72 subject of each of the? tv.'clve voicejv. The t\'/Glve voices were the levels of the repeated neasureinents factor; the levels of the two other factors v/ere the throe age groups and th.o two sex groups. It was predicted that H? and IIT speakers would be rated as more positively valued than HIspeakers and that HL and HT speakers v;oulc be rated a5: raore dynamic than KP speakers. The latter prediction v/as confirmed by the data v.'hile the former was rot. Differences betv'eon voices of the same type led to the conclusion th.at voice qualities, other than pitch, loudness and terapc, affecued tVie. ratings, especially those made on the evaluative scales. In general, men who spoke loudly, or v/ith high pitched voices, v;ere rated as valued v.'hile tl'.cse v.'ho spok.o softly were net; v\ev. v/ho spo]:e loudly or q\i;ckly were seen as more dynamic tiuin speakers who spoJ.e slowly or softly or v/ith high-pitched voices. An interesting finding v.'as thiit when the voices were examined in terms of VO)" , rather than voice type, the data tended to confirm the hyrjothesis regarding the evaluative ratings as v.'ell as the hypothesis regarding the dynamism ratings. The sex-ofjudge affected both the evaluative and dyn£vaism ratings of the voices. In the evaluative analysis, the sex differences were attributed to the extreme ratings of the females, especially of the HL and LL voices^ T}\e sex dif f erences Ln the dynamism, ratings were attributed to tlie larger discrimination made by the males between the HP and L^-* voices. The females, on the other hand, discriminated

PAGE 83

73 more bGtv;een IlL and LJi voices and IIT and LT voices than did the males. Age differences v;ere a].so fouiid in both the evaluative and dynaraism ratings. There v/as a corsistent developmental trend in the ratings of the voices on the evaluative scales. VJith regard to the ratings of the voices on the dynar.iism scales, it v;as concluded that the youngest age group v/as the most accurate. Further research v/as suggested v.'ith female speakers, other voice qualit.ies , the loudness voice, quality alone and younger judges.

PAGE 84

APPENDICES

PAGE 85

AP^']:Nn':x a

PAGE 86

G Instruction s to Pubject^s Everyone should no'-? have a booklet contain5-ng foiir sheets. Raise your hand if you don't have a boo^rlet or if your booklet doesn't have 4 sheets. (Pause) We ax'c going to see if you can guess v;hat some men are like just by hearing then say one sentence. Before we try some exanplcs please v/rite th.e followi;ig information in the spaces provided on page 1 of your booklet. First your name (Pausr^) ; Lhe rao/ith, day anc year of your bd rth (Pause); your sex -if you are a boy, put a circle around the '', if you are a girl, put a circl around the F (Pause) ; next fill in the grade you are in in sch.ool (Pause). Nov; you are ready to lecirn how to make your guesses. You v/ill alv/ays indicate what you think a man is like by making an X on an adjective scale. An adjective scale is two v'ords v/hich arc opposite in rieaning like tall and short. These v7ords are printed on opposite sides of a page and are separated by 7 dashes or lines. Fxartiplo A ori page 1 is the adjective scale ta] 1-short (Pause). Notice that the seven dasher or ].ines are separated by tv70 dots. This is to help you place your X in the correct space. Exai^'ple B shov.'s the rrieaning of each of the seven spaces on the tallshort scale. You niglit like to read these labels 76

PAGE 87

77 silently to ycursclf while I road then a]oud. Putting an X in the npaco closest to the v^ord tall \/oald mean that you guessed the nan v;as \TJRy TALL. The next space v;ould indicate that the man vas QUITE TALL. You would use this space if you thought a man was taller than SLIGHTLY TALL but shorter than \TRY TA3.L. The space in the middle of the tall-shcrt scale should he used when your guess is that the man is AVERAGE in height. The first space on the short side of the tall-short scale should be used if you guess that a man is SLIGHTLY SHORT, that is, a little shox'ter than average. The next space on the scale v;ould indicate that you thought the man was QUITE SI'ORT and finally the space closest to the v.'ord short should be used if you guess a man is W_1RY SHORT. Exanple C shov;9 the tallshore scale vrith a guess already indicated. When I heard man. nu'nber 1 soeak I guessed that he v;as just sliglitly taller than average so I placed my X in the space next to the center space on the tall side of the scale. F:xample D shov/s my guess about the height of nan 2. Something about the way he sounded made m.e guess that he v/as QUI'3'E SHORT so T nut m.y X in tlie second space from the word short. Mow let's try a few for practice. Pefore you hear the voice, you will be told what number jt is. Be sure to put your X for a particular vcicc on the scale next to biie voice number [Voices 3, 4 and 5 v.-ere played and time was allowed for rating.] Are there any questions? (Pause) OK let's try some more. On each of the next throe

PAGE 88

78 pages you V7:.ll make gviesses about 12 voices. On each page you will raark your guesses on a different scale. V'rite dov.-n your first iripression and be sure that you pat dov/n an X each ti^ne you hear a voice. However, never put more than 1 X on the sane scale. Be sure to put your X's in the middle of one of the spaces; never put an X on the dots. Please turn the page and notice which adjective scale you willi:^using to make guesses about the next 12 voices . The above phrase followed the first tV70 sets of twelve voices crn each type. All voices \/ere preceded by an announcement of the voice nuiri}:)er and follov;ed by approximately 10 seconds of silence.

PAGE 89

a?pl!;dtx

PAGE 90

Sanplo Instruction Sheet NA^iE ^ ^_ SEX : M BIRTKDATE: Month Dav Year GRADE: Exaraple A: TALL :::::: SHORT Example B: > > E-i a Eh t"; S_ < t: E^ W Eh t^ f.; ^J1 t-; (^ k: 1-1 r.] K-, C H C t: O r> r-: r C-j rit^ r:^ rr rr r r^ h> r M-» T?J.L • : : : : : : SHORT Example C: MAi\i Number 1 TALL : ; Y. ; : : : SITQRT Ex ^3'^ie D : 2 TALL :__ : : : :_X : SHORT PRACTICE VOICES 3 TALL : : __: : : _ : SHORT 4 TALL : : :__ _:__ : .: _, SHORT 5 TI^JLl, :::::: SHORT DO NOT TUFIT PAGE UKTIL TOLD TO DO SO SO

PAGE 91

81 Sample Rating Sheet

PAGE 92

u. LIST OF R.EFERENCES Allport, G. and Cantril, II. Judging personality from the voice. Jou rnal of S o_cia l Psycho logv, 1934, 5, 37-55. ~" Barnard, J. W'. The effects of anxiety on coiinctativo meaTiing. Child Developrn on t , 1 9 6 6 , 37 ', 4 6 1 -4 7 2 . Erandv/in, M. A. Levels of reference in connotative meaning: A developniental study. Papers of the Ilichigan Ac cid em y o f Scie nce , Arts and Lette rs , T5 G'b", ~ Sff , 34 3-35 3. Cantril, IT. and Allport, G. Tli_e P s y cho logy o f Radio. ?Iew York: Harper, 1935'. Costanzo, F. S., Markel, N. N, and Costanzo, P. R. Voice quality profile and perceived eraotior. . Journal^ of Counse ling Isv'chclogy, 19G9, 16; 257-270". Dintitrovsky , L. Tlie ability to identify the eriotioncil meaning of vocal excrossions at successive age levels. Tn Joel R. nr,.vit^ (Fd.) Tl"'^ ^Pi:i!iV™i-.9AtJ.2t?. of Erg gti onal /'-gg;^-''-'].'Tl» -'^'ew York: McGr7iw-Hill , i'-/6 4. Dittman, /*. T, and Wynne, J.. C. Linguistic techniques and the anc' lysis of enotionality in interviev73^ L'^H.tilSi-. of Abnormal and Soci a 1 P sy cholog y , 1961, G_3, 201-204" Di Vesta, F. J. A norinative study of 220 concepts rated ow the semantic differential in grades 2 through. 7. Journal of___^e net i^_/>sych 1966, 109^, 205-22 9, Di VG5t.a; F. J. and Dick, W. The test-retest reliabili(:y of children's ratings on the semantic differential. Educational and Psychclog ical Measureinqnt , 196 6, Donahoc, J. 'd , Changes in meaning as a function cf age. Joarnal of" Genetic Psychology, 1961, 9^9, 2 3~2C. Gates, G. S. The role of the auditory eienent in the interpretation of eraoti.on. Psychclogical Bulletin , 192 7, 2_4, 175, Goodcnough, E. VJ. Interest in persons as an aspect of sex differences in the early years, G^^ip_Ji!£Y^''^2r"^^' :-:onograrh3, ^957, 55, 287"-323. 82

PAGE 93

Kra'iier, E. vJudgiasnt of parscnal chc-iracteristics and onotiops from nonverbal propartie;^ of speech. Psvcholoqical Ru l.Tcti n, 19G3, 6£, 408-1 20. '' Kramer, E, Personality stereotypes in voice: A reconsideration of the data. Jour nal of Social ^sycholoav, ]964, 62, 247-251. " ' ^ Lilly, v.. S. 7v developmental study of the semantic differential. Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University, 1965. Mahl, G. F. and Schul^e, G. Psychological research in the extralinguistic area. In T. A. Sebeol; , A. P. Haves and M. C. Bateson, (Eds,), Ap p r o a g h e s _ t o Feraiotics. The Hague: Mouton and Company , "T5"64 7 pp. 51'^*:?T7~ iMaltz, H. E. Ontogenetic changes in the meaning of concepts as measured by the semantic differential. Child Developaient, 1963, 3j?_, G67-674. Markel, M. N. and Haiaj), E. P, Connotative meanings of certain phoneme sequences. Studies in Linguistics, 1960, 15_, 47-61. ' — -— Markel, P. M. The reliability of coding paralanguage : i^itch, loudness and teinpo, Oournal of ^Verbal Learning and ^•£^£i2-„.^£ll£yju^^ ' 19 6 5', 4, 3U(rrj0 8, " " ' ' Mar3;el, N. N. The relatiojishlp between voice quality profiles and Ir.i^I profiles in psychiatric patients/ Journal 2.^_3^2I19Ji!l2i«,^^Z£^'-'-'-^'^^'' ^-5 60 a, 74, 61-66. ' " Ma.':]:cl, !!. 11. Personal connunication, 19(.->:>b. Markel, M. N., Meisels, M. and Pouck, J. E, Judging personality from voice quality. Journal of £^J2iL^\il^iJL-.!Lr-'J.-i':2.g^jfl--^-^^ c h c 1 o g y , 1 TcT^ , T? , 'Ts S -^ 4 6 3 . Markel, !]. N. and Roblin,. G. L. The effect of content and sex-ofjudge on judgments of personality from voice. I n t e rn a ti.ona 1 Journal of Social Psychiatrv, 19 6!., 117 29 5 "'3 . ' " ' '* Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, t^ . H. The Llf 2;0JiL^j^.'"'L,S!^-il"^i2^IL^-f • Ur;5ana: University or 1 11 i I •. oTs " Piess", 1 9 5'7 . Pear, T. \{, Voice and Personaiitv. London: Chapman and Hall, l"J31. ' " '~ Sapir, E. Speech, as a personality trait, A'r>e r i. c a n J o u rn a 1 of Sociology, 1927, 32 ," 892-505 . " Serial I, E, R. Age ard sex differences in th.e semantic structare of children, Doctora]. Dissertation, UniversiLv cf -'lichigan, 1958.

PAGE 94

84 Strieker, and Za>:, InteD-liqe nee and senantic differential discrirainabilifry . P s y ch o 1 oc j i c a 1 ReporLs, 1S)C6, IS, 775-77 8. " "'" "^ Thorndike, E. L. and Lorge , I. 'r'tia_ Teaclior ' s ^'Jord Vjool: of 30 ,OiJO^ Woi^rds, Nev; YorlT; Pureau oT ^ubTrca"ti"cns", Teacher's College, Colunbia Univorsity , 19 4/i. Trager, G. L. Paralanguage': : A first approxination . Studies in L Jn g ui s t i c s , 1958, 13, 1-12. ~" Vargas, R. A study of certain pers-onality characteristics of male college students who report frequent positive experiencing and behaving. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 19C8. Tviner , B, J. Statistical Principles in T^xperiraental Design. bJev; YorKT kcGrar7-^ii"lX'•oo]r~c'6vnpa^^^ ~

PAGE 95

BIOGRAPHICAL SKliTCH Judith T\nn Phillin was born in Uniontov.'n , Pennsylvania, on March 22, 194 2. She v/as graduated from Susquehanna Tov/nship High School, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in June of 196 0. In the fall of that year she entered Carnegie Institute of Technology (Carnegie-Mellon University) , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, fron v;hich she v/as graduated ivith the degree of Bachelor of Science in June, 3 964. From June, 19C4, through August, 1965, Miss Phillis V7as er.iployed as a research assii;tant at the Craig Jiouse for Children in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In September, 19G5, she began graduate study in psychology at the University of Florida. Fro^n June, 1967, urril August., 1967, she was employed as a lairoratory technician at the Con:nunic:ation Sciences Laboratory, University of Florida. She received the degree Master of Arts in August, 1967, and since that tiTie she has pursued her work tov.-ard the degree of Doctor of ^i^'hilosophy ,

PAGE 96

This dinsertatior! v/as prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supejrvisory committee and has been approved by all members of that cor.imittee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and V7as approved as partial fulf illiiient of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosoj^hy. December, 196 9 Dean, Co Arts and ScTTen'cos" Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee _miZj^.^^4--u.__U