JOURNAL
OF COMMUNICATION
JUDGING
DISORDERS
12 ( 1979)) 63-68
63
PERSONALITY AND APPEARANCE VOICE DISORDERS
FROM
GORDON W. BLOOD* Departrner~f of Communicntion
bisorders,
BLAIR WALLACE Program
in Communication
Disorders.
Radford College, R&ford,
MAHAN,
Vtr,yinia 24141
and MELVIN HYMAN
Bowling Green State Utliversitx, 42403
Bordirrg Greet,, Ohio
This study examined the effect of voice disorders on judgments of personality and appearance. One-hundred-and-five college students evaluated the personality and appearance characteristics of 12 speakers, four with normal voice quality, four with harsh-breathy voice quality, and four with hypernasal voice quality. A semantic differential procedure was employed to obtain ratings on 12 bipolar adjectives. Results indicate a significant difference between the normal and disordered voices. Voice -,,orders elicit more negative responses on judgments of personality and appearance of the speaker. These findings indicate that voice disorders warrant correction.
Introduction Studies have shown that various kinds of information about speakers can be conveyed through recorded speech samples. Listeners make judgments about sex (Schwartz, 1968; Coleman, 1971), age (Ptacek and Sander, 1966; Shipp and Hollien, 1969; Hartman and Danhauer, 1976), personality (Stagner, 1936; Markel et al., 1967), socioeconomic status (Harms, 1961, 1963)) race (Stroud, 1966; Abrams, 1975), and facial and bodily features (Lass and Harvey, 1976). The purpose of the present investigation is to extend these findings by examining the judgments a listener employs when evaluating a disordered voice on the dimensions of appearance and personality. Application of these findings may provide the voice clinician with a more complete picture of the adult exhibiting a vocal disturbance, as well as a rationale for therapeutic intervention. Method Stimulus
Tape
Recordings of 12 Caucasian adult female speakers (ranging in age from 18 to 25, mean age 22.4 yr), four with normal voice quality, four with harsh-breathy voice quality, and four with hypernasal voice quality, were used as stimuli in this *Address correspondence to: Gordon W. Blood, Department of Communication College, Radford, Virginia 24141.
D Elsevier North Holland Publishing Company,
Inc.,
1979
Disorders, Radford
0021.9924/79/001063-05$01.75
64
G. W. BLOOD,
B. W. MAHAN,
and M. HYMAN
study. The speakers were recorded on a Sony TC 105 tape recorder in a soundtreated room, while engaged in reading the first paragraph of Fairbanks’ (1960) The R&bow Passage. The reading samples were played for three judges (speech clinicians with the certificate of clinical competence) and rated. The stimulus tape was mutually agreed upon by the three judges and the authors independently as normal, harsh-breathy, and hypernasal voice qualities. Stimulus Photographs In order to evaluate appearance, portrait view (head, neck, and shoulders) photographs were taken of the 12 speakers. All photographs were taken on a solid background and no attempt was made to normalize size by enlargement or reduction. No clothing restrictions were placed on the speakers. All photographs were taken with a Minolta 101 35-mm, single-lens reflex camera and Kodak Kodachrome (ASA) color slide film. Rating Scules The semantic differential procedure employed by Markel et al. (1967) was used, with the addition of three adjective pairs evaluating appearance, to determine listener’s judgments of the speakers. The above authors used a 6point scale (eliminating the neutral category) with nine adjective pairs examining personality. In a similar manner, this study used a B-point scale with 12 adjective pairs. These included kindlcruel, strong-weak, pretty-homely,* fast-slow, loudquiet, attractive-unattractive,* nice-awful, sharp-dull, active-passive, rugged-delicate, pleasant-unpleasant, and beautiful-ugly*. (The asterisk indicates the three additional categories used in this study.) Subjects
A total of 105 individuals, all undergraduates at Bowling Green State University , volunteered to participate in the study. They ranged in age from 18 to 24 yr, with a mean age of 19.6 yr. Procedure
The subjects were tested in three groups, each with 35 individuals, with the same procedure in each group. Each subject participated in only one group. Prior to listening to each of the reading samples, the subjects were instructed in how to use the rating scale and to wait until the speaker had completed the passage until rating. Booklets containing 12 identical semantic differential forms were given to the subjects. Subjects were tested either individually or in groups (significance testing revealed no differences between ratings in either situation). Testing began
JUDGING
PERSONALITY
65
FROM VOICE DISORDERS
with the simultaneous presentation of the reading passage accompanied by a photographic slide via a Kodak Carousel projector. At the completion of the first reading the subject was asked to rate the individual he had seen and heard. Subjects were allowed 2 min to complete the form. The next 11 speakers were seen and heard in the exact same fashion. The first group saw the 12 speakers with their own pictures and voices. The second group saw the normal speakers’ pictures with harsh breathy voice qualities, the harsh-breathy speakers’ pictures with hypernasal voice qualities, and the hypernasal speakers’ pictures with normal voice qualities. The third group saw the normal speakers’ pictures with hypernasal voice qualities, the harshbreathy speakers’ pictures with normal voice qualities, and the hypernasal speakers’ pictures with harsh-breathy voice qualities (Table I). Therefore each speaker was seen with all three voice. qualities. Results In analyzing the data, the extreme scale point for a positive adjective was 1, while the extreme scale point for a negative adjective was 6. The overall mean ratings on each dimension were (I) personality: normal-2.32; harsh-breathy3.79; hypernasalA.ll; and (2) appearance: normal-2.54; harsh-breathy4.99; and hypernasal-5.17. A 105 X 3 X 2 (subjects X voices X dimensions) analysis of variance was used to evaluate the significance of the difference between the ratings of the voices (Ferguson, 1976). Examination of Table 2 reveals significant differences between the normal and disordered voices 0, < 0.00 1) and an increase in negative ratings when the speaker was heard with a voice disorder. There TABLE I Method of Altering the Voice Samples to Allow Each Speaker’s Voices after Randomization Slides of speaker
Group I
C
Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Normal Normal Harsh-breathy Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Normal Hypemasal Normal
Picture to Be Seen with All Three
Speakers Group II Normal Hypemasal Normal Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Harsh-breathy Hypemasal Normal Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Normal Harsh-breathv
Group III Harsh-breathy Normal Harsh-breathy Normal Hypemasal Hypernasal Normal Harsh-breathy Normal Hypernasal Harsh-breathy
G. W. BLOOD,
66
B. W. MAHAN,
and M. HYMAN
was also a significant interaction between the voices and the subjects. To determine which specific means contributed to the significant interaction, NewmapKeuls post hoc comparisons were applied to the means for each voice quality. The results show that a significant difference existed only between the normal and harsh-breathy, and normal and hypemasal voices on both dimensions.
Discussion The results of this study suggest that a listener’s perceptual set is altered by a voice disorder when evaluating appearance and personality. Our findings indicate that a listener perceives a speaker with a voice disorder in a more negative manner when evaluating the dimensions of personality and appearance. Therefore, the findings of this study assert that a voice disorder (1) conveys information about the speaker, (2) is a factor in the judgments of personality and appearance from recorded tape samples and photographic slides, and (3) is a handicap in that other people react to it negatively. The findings of this study should be disseminated to the voice clinician as a possible rationale for therapeutic intervention, as well as to the adult client with a voice disorder as a possible motivational tool.
Means, Standard
TABLE 2 Deviations. and Significance Testing for Normal, Harsh-Breathy, Voice Qualities on the Dimensions of Personality and Appearance
and Hypernasal
Vocal quality Dimension
Normal
Harsh-breathy
Hypemasal
Personality Mean S.D.
2.32’ 0.91
3.790 1.15
4.110 1.04
Appearance Mean S.D.
2.540 0.97
4.YYO 1.09
5.17” 0.99
0 Indicates significant
differences
at the 0.001 level between normal and disordered
voices.
References Abrams, A. S. (1975). Auditory cues and racial identification. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, November 21-24, Washington, D. C. Coleman, R. 0. (1971). Male and female voice quality and its relationship to vowel formant frequencies. J. Speech Hear. Res. 14: 565-511. Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice and crrriculntion &i//hook. New York: Harper & Row.
JUDGING
PERSONALITY
FROM VOICE DISORDERS
67
Ferguson, G. A. (1976) Statistical analwis in psychology md education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Harms, L. S. (1961). Listener judgments of status cue in speech. Q. J. Speech 47: 164168. Harms, L. S. (1963). Listener comprehension of speakers of three status groups. Lang. Speech 4: iO%112. Hartman, D. E., and Danhauer, J. L. (1976). Perceptual features of speech for males in four perceived age decades. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 59: 7 13-7 15. Lass, N. J., and Harvey, L. A. (1976). An investigation of speaker photograph identification. J. Acoust. Sot. Aln. 59: 1232-1236. Markel. N., Eisler, R. M., and Reese, H. W. (1967). Judging personality from dialect. J. Verb. Leurn. Verb. Bchuv. 6: 33-35. Ptacek, P. H., and Sander, E. K. (1966). Age recognition from voice. J. Speech Hear. Res. 9:27_%277. Schwartz, M. F. (1968) Identification of speaker sex from isolated, whispered vowels. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 43: 1178-1179. Shipp, F. T., and Hollien, H. (1969). Perception of the aging male voice. .I. Speech Hear. Res. 12: 703-7 10. Stroud, R. V. (1956). A study of the relation between social distance and speech differences of White and Negro high school students of Dayton, Ohio. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University. Stagner, R. (1936). Judgments of voice and personality. J. E&c. Psycho/. 27: 272-277.
OF COMMUNICATION
JUDGING
DISORDERS
12 ( 1979)) 63-68
63
PERSONALITY AND APPEARANCE VOICE DISORDERS
FROM
GORDON W. BLOOD* Departrner~f of Communicntion
bisorders,
BLAIR WALLACE Program
in Communication
Disorders.
Radford College, R&ford,
MAHAN,
Vtr,yinia 24141
and MELVIN HYMAN
Bowling Green State Utliversitx, 42403
Bordirrg Greet,, Ohio
This study examined the effect of voice disorders on judgments of personality and appearance. One-hundred-and-five college students evaluated the personality and appearance characteristics of 12 speakers, four with normal voice quality, four with harsh-breathy voice quality, and four with hypernasal voice quality. A semantic differential procedure was employed to obtain ratings on 12 bipolar adjectives. Results indicate a significant difference between the normal and disordered voices. Voice -,,orders elicit more negative responses on judgments of personality and appearance of the speaker. These findings indicate that voice disorders warrant correction.
Introduction Studies have shown that various kinds of information about speakers can be conveyed through recorded speech samples. Listeners make judgments about sex (Schwartz, 1968; Coleman, 1971), age (Ptacek and Sander, 1966; Shipp and Hollien, 1969; Hartman and Danhauer, 1976), personality (Stagner, 1936; Markel et al., 1967), socioeconomic status (Harms, 1961, 1963)) race (Stroud, 1966; Abrams, 1975), and facial and bodily features (Lass and Harvey, 1976). The purpose of the present investigation is to extend these findings by examining the judgments a listener employs when evaluating a disordered voice on the dimensions of appearance and personality. Application of these findings may provide the voice clinician with a more complete picture of the adult exhibiting a vocal disturbance, as well as a rationale for therapeutic intervention. Method Stimulus
Tape
Recordings of 12 Caucasian adult female speakers (ranging in age from 18 to 25, mean age 22.4 yr), four with normal voice quality, four with harsh-breathy voice quality, and four with hypernasal voice quality, were used as stimuli in this *Address correspondence to: Gordon W. Blood, Department of Communication College, Radford, Virginia 24141.
D Elsevier North Holland Publishing Company,
Inc.,
1979
Disorders, Radford
0021.9924/79/001063-05$01.75
64
G. W. BLOOD,
B. W. MAHAN,
and M. HYMAN
study. The speakers were recorded on a Sony TC 105 tape recorder in a soundtreated room, while engaged in reading the first paragraph of Fairbanks’ (1960) The R&bow Passage. The reading samples were played for three judges (speech clinicians with the certificate of clinical competence) and rated. The stimulus tape was mutually agreed upon by the three judges and the authors independently as normal, harsh-breathy, and hypernasal voice qualities. Stimulus Photographs In order to evaluate appearance, portrait view (head, neck, and shoulders) photographs were taken of the 12 speakers. All photographs were taken on a solid background and no attempt was made to normalize size by enlargement or reduction. No clothing restrictions were placed on the speakers. All photographs were taken with a Minolta 101 35-mm, single-lens reflex camera and Kodak Kodachrome (ASA) color slide film. Rating Scules The semantic differential procedure employed by Markel et al. (1967) was used, with the addition of three adjective pairs evaluating appearance, to determine listener’s judgments of the speakers. The above authors used a 6point scale (eliminating the neutral category) with nine adjective pairs examining personality. In a similar manner, this study used a B-point scale with 12 adjective pairs. These included kindlcruel, strong-weak, pretty-homely,* fast-slow, loudquiet, attractive-unattractive,* nice-awful, sharp-dull, active-passive, rugged-delicate, pleasant-unpleasant, and beautiful-ugly*. (The asterisk indicates the three additional categories used in this study.) Subjects
A total of 105 individuals, all undergraduates at Bowling Green State University , volunteered to participate in the study. They ranged in age from 18 to 24 yr, with a mean age of 19.6 yr. Procedure
The subjects were tested in three groups, each with 35 individuals, with the same procedure in each group. Each subject participated in only one group. Prior to listening to each of the reading samples, the subjects were instructed in how to use the rating scale and to wait until the speaker had completed the passage until rating. Booklets containing 12 identical semantic differential forms were given to the subjects. Subjects were tested either individually or in groups (significance testing revealed no differences between ratings in either situation). Testing began
JUDGING
PERSONALITY
65
FROM VOICE DISORDERS
with the simultaneous presentation of the reading passage accompanied by a photographic slide via a Kodak Carousel projector. At the completion of the first reading the subject was asked to rate the individual he had seen and heard. Subjects were allowed 2 min to complete the form. The next 11 speakers were seen and heard in the exact same fashion. The first group saw the 12 speakers with their own pictures and voices. The second group saw the normal speakers’ pictures with harsh breathy voice qualities, the harsh-breathy speakers’ pictures with hypernasal voice qualities, and the hypernasal speakers’ pictures with normal voice qualities. The third group saw the normal speakers’ pictures with hypernasal voice qualities, the harshbreathy speakers’ pictures with normal voice qualities, and the hypernasal speakers’ pictures with harsh-breathy voice qualities (Table I). Therefore each speaker was seen with all three voice. qualities. Results In analyzing the data, the extreme scale point for a positive adjective was 1, while the extreme scale point for a negative adjective was 6. The overall mean ratings on each dimension were (I) personality: normal-2.32; harsh-breathy3.79; hypernasalA.ll; and (2) appearance: normal-2.54; harsh-breathy4.99; and hypernasal-5.17. A 105 X 3 X 2 (subjects X voices X dimensions) analysis of variance was used to evaluate the significance of the difference between the ratings of the voices (Ferguson, 1976). Examination of Table 2 reveals significant differences between the normal and disordered voices 0, < 0.00 1) and an increase in negative ratings when the speaker was heard with a voice disorder. There TABLE I Method of Altering the Voice Samples to Allow Each Speaker’s Voices after Randomization Slides of speaker
Group I
C
Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Normal Normal Harsh-breathy Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Normal Hypemasal Normal
Picture to Be Seen with All Three
Speakers Group II Normal Hypemasal Normal Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Harsh-breathy Hypemasal Normal Hypemasal Harsh-breathy Normal Harsh-breathv
Group III Harsh-breathy Normal Harsh-breathy Normal Hypemasal Hypernasal Normal Harsh-breathy Normal Hypernasal Harsh-breathy
G. W. BLOOD,
66
B. W. MAHAN,
and M. HYMAN
was also a significant interaction between the voices and the subjects. To determine which specific means contributed to the significant interaction, NewmapKeuls post hoc comparisons were applied to the means for each voice quality. The results show that a significant difference existed only between the normal and harsh-breathy, and normal and hypemasal voices on both dimensions.
Discussion The results of this study suggest that a listener’s perceptual set is altered by a voice disorder when evaluating appearance and personality. Our findings indicate that a listener perceives a speaker with a voice disorder in a more negative manner when evaluating the dimensions of personality and appearance. Therefore, the findings of this study assert that a voice disorder (1) conveys information about the speaker, (2) is a factor in the judgments of personality and appearance from recorded tape samples and photographic slides, and (3) is a handicap in that other people react to it negatively. The findings of this study should be disseminated to the voice clinician as a possible rationale for therapeutic intervention, as well as to the adult client with a voice disorder as a possible motivational tool.
Means, Standard
TABLE 2 Deviations. and Significance Testing for Normal, Harsh-Breathy, Voice Qualities on the Dimensions of Personality and Appearance
and Hypernasal
Vocal quality Dimension
Normal
Harsh-breathy
Hypemasal
Personality Mean S.D.
2.32’ 0.91
3.790 1.15
4.110 1.04
Appearance Mean S.D.
2.540 0.97
4.YYO 1.09
5.17” 0.99
0 Indicates significant
differences
at the 0.001 level between normal and disordered
voices.
References Abrams, A. S. (1975). Auditory cues and racial identification. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, November 21-24, Washington, D. C. Coleman, R. 0. (1971). Male and female voice quality and its relationship to vowel formant frequencies. J. Speech Hear. Res. 14: 565-511. Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice and crrriculntion &i//hook. New York: Harper & Row.
JUDGING
PERSONALITY
FROM VOICE DISORDERS
67
Ferguson, G. A. (1976) Statistical analwis in psychology md education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Harms, L. S. (1961). Listener judgments of status cue in speech. Q. J. Speech 47: 164168. Harms, L. S. (1963). Listener comprehension of speakers of three status groups. Lang. Speech 4: iO%112. Hartman, D. E., and Danhauer, J. L. (1976). Perceptual features of speech for males in four perceived age decades. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 59: 7 13-7 15. Lass, N. J., and Harvey, L. A. (1976). An investigation of speaker photograph identification. J. Acoust. Sot. Aln. 59: 1232-1236. Markel. N., Eisler, R. M., and Reese, H. W. (1967). Judging personality from dialect. J. Verb. Leurn. Verb. Bchuv. 6: 33-35. Ptacek, P. H., and Sander, E. K. (1966). Age recognition from voice. J. Speech Hear. Res. 9:27_%277. Schwartz, M. F. (1968) Identification of speaker sex from isolated, whispered vowels. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 43: 1178-1179. Shipp, F. T., and Hollien, H. (1969). Perception of the aging male voice. .I. Speech Hear. Res. 12: 703-7 10. Stroud, R. V. (1956). A study of the relation between social distance and speech differences of White and Negro high school students of Dayton, Ohio. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University. Stagner, R. (1936). Judgments of voice and personality. J. E&c. Psycho/. 27: 272-277.
