IN PRESS: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, UNCORRECTED PROOF. The Sound of Intellect: Speech Reveals a Thoughtful Mind, Increasing a Job Candidate s Appeal

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN PRESS: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, UNCORRECTED PROOF. The Sound of Intellect: Speech Reveals a Thoughtful Mind, Increasing a Job Candidate s Appeal"

Transcription

1 IN PRESS: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, UNCORRECTED PROOF The Sound of Intellect: Speech Reveals a Thoughtful Mind, Increasing a Job Candidate s Appeal Juliana Schroeder & Nicholas Epley University of Chicago

2 Speech Conveys Intellect, 2 Abstract A person s mental capacities, such as intellect, cannot be observed directly and so are instead inferred from indirect cues. We predicted that a person s intellect would be conveyed most strongly through a cue closely tied to actual thinking: his or her voice. Hypothetical employers (Experiments 1-3b) and professional recruiters (Experiment 4) watched, listened, or read job candidates pitches about why they should be hired. Evaluators rated the candidates as more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent when they heard the pitch than when they read it and, as a result, liked the candidate more and were more interested in hiring the candidate. Adding voice to written pitches, by having trained actors (Experiment 3a) or untrained adults (Experiment 3b) read them, replicated these results. Adding visual cues through video did not influence evaluations beyond the candidate's voice. When conveying one s intellect, it is important for one's voice, quite literally, to be heard. Key words: Communication, Voice, Speech, Mind Perception, Social Cognition, Decision Making

3 Speech Conveys Intellect, 3 The Sound of Intellect: Speech Reveals a Thoughtful Mind, Increasing a Job Candidate's Appeal Some of the most important decisions in life are based on inferences about another person s mental capacities. Is this person trustworthy or deceptive? Was the perpetrator capable of judging right from wrong? Will this job candidate be smart enough to succeed here? Such inferences require sophisticated social cognition about invisible mental processes that go beyond observable behavior, guided by both top-down mechanisms of egocentric projection (O Brien & Ellsworth, 2012; Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003) and stereotype application (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007) as well as by bottom-up interpretations of another person s behavior (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Here we examine how judgments of another person s mental capacity specifically, the capacity for reasoning and intellect is affected by a cue directly linked to the person s ongoing mental experience: his or her voice. A person s voice, after all, is a conduit for expressing sophisticated thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge using the semantic and paralinguistic cues available in language (Pinker & Bloom, 1990). Existing research reveals the unique importance of a person s voice for understanding the contents of another s thoughts over and above the semantic content of language alone. Because of the paralinguistic cues in voice such as intonation, cadence, amplitude, observers who hear communicators more accurately guess their actual thoughts and feelings than those who read the exact same words in text (Hall & Schmid- Mast, 2007; Kruger, Epley, Parker, & Ng, 2005). Adding visual information to verbal information does not appear to increase this accuracy (Hall & Schmid-Mast, 2007; Zaki, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2009), suggesting that visual information may be redundant or less informative for mental capacity inferences than speech.

4 Speech Conveys Intellect, 4 Beyond communicating the contents of a person s mind their specific thoughts and beliefs we predicted that a person s speech also conveys their fundamental capacity to think their capacity for reasoning, thoughtfulness, and intellect. Changes in the tone, cadence, and pitch of individuals voices, for example, may reveal the process of thinking and reasoning while it is happening, thereby conveying the presence of mental capacity more clearly than would the semantic content of language alone. Just as variability in motion serves as a cue for biological life, so too may variability in voice serve as cue for a lively, active, and capable mind. If so, then a person should appear to have greater mental capacity to be more thoughtful, rational, and intelligent when observers hear what the person has to say than when they read what the person has to say. Inferences about another person s mental capacity are important in social life because the capacity for thinking, reasoning, and rationality are defining features of personhood according to both philosophers and lay people (Demoulin, Leyens, et al., 2004; Dennett, 1987; Farah & Heberlein, 2007; Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007; Haslam, Bain, et al., 2005; Kant, 1785/1959; Locke, 1841/1997). People are perceived as more capable of reasoning than are animals and robots. Failing to recognize another person s capacity for thinking, reasoning, and rationality is therefore a subtle form of dehumanization (Harris & Fiske, 2006; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; Waytz, Schroeder, & Epley, 2014). By predicting that a person s speech reveals a person s capacity for intellect, we are also predicting that speech is humanizing. Three existing results suggest our hypotheses. First, observers more accurately predict another person s thoughts and feelings when they can hear them than when they read the same content (Hall & Schmid-Mast, 2007; Ickes, 2003; Kruger et al., 2005; Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967; Zaki et al., 2009). Communicators themselves do not seem to recognize this result,

5 Speech Conveys Intellect, 5 expecting to communicate equally well across media (Kruger et al., 2005). Second, giving a machine a human voice increases the tendency to anthropomorphize it, attributing a mind capable of thinking and feeling to an otherwise mindless machine (Nass & Brave, 2005; Takayama & Nass, 2008; Waytz, Heafner, & Epley, 2014). Third, paralinguistic characteristics of a person's voice (e.g., pitch level) alter observers trait-based impressions (Gregory & Webster, 1996; Hughes, Mogilski, & Harrison, 2014; Jones, Feinberg, DeBruine, Little, & Vukovic, 2010; Laplante & Ambady, 2003). Most relevant to our hypothesis, speakers in one series of experiments (Schroeder & Epley, 2015) were rated as less mindful e.g., as less thoughtful and reasonable when observers read the transcript of a speech than when they heard the very same speech. Likewise, adding voice to written text using actors led observers to rate the original author as more mindful. In these experiments, pitch variance (i.e., intonation) conveyed the capacity for thinking most strongly. Actors instructed to read the words of a speech putting little feeling or life into the words spoke in a relatively monotone voice, and were subsequently rated as less mindful by observers, than actors who were asked to read a speech as if they were the real speaker. If readers do not spontaneously compensate for the lack of paralinguistic cues in text, then their impressions of a speaker s mental capacities could be systematically diminished compared to hearing their speech. We tested the importance of a person s voice for communicating intellect in a domain where judgments of a person s mental capacities are both common and critical: hiring decisions. We asked MBA students to provide an elevator pitch to potential employers a short description of one s qualifications commonly used in real interviews. Across 5 experiments, either hypothetical employers (Experiments 1-3b) or professional job recruiters (Experiment 4) watched, listened to, read transcripts of spoken pitches, or read written pitches, and then

6 Speech Conveys Intellect, 6 evaluated a job candidate s intellect, reported their general impressions, and indicated their interest in hiring the candidate. We predicted that job candidates would seem more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent when people heard them explain their qualifications than when people read the text of the very same speech, or read a written description of a candidate s qualifications. Because intellect is essential for many jobs, we also predicted that potential employers would like the candidate more, have a more favorable impression of the candidate, and be more interested in hiring the candidate when they heard his or her speech. Experiment 1: Voice vs. Transcript We videotaped MBA students making spoken elevator pitches to their top potential employer. Evaluators then watched, listened, or read transcripts of the videos. We predicted candidates would seem more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent when heard than when read, and that evaluators would consequently be more interested in hiring a candidate when heard than when read. Including the video condition tests between our proposed mechanism that speech conveys intellect through paralinguistic cues in voice and an alternative explanation that it conveys intellect through individuation. If additional individuating information conveys intellect, then video should make a person appear even more mentally capable than audio alone. If, as we predict, mental capacity is revealed primarily through a person s voice, then video should be similar to audio. Method Participants. All eighteen University of Chicago Booth School of Business students (M age = 28.2, SD age = 2.07, 11 males) who responded to our request for research assistance gave a job pitch in exchange for a $5 Starbucks gift card. We then recruited 162 people (M age = 36.86, SD age = 15.01, 80 males) visiting the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry to evaluate the

7 Speech Conveys Intellect, 7 candidates in exchange for a food item. We predetermined this sample size of evaluators in order to have 3 people evaluating each of the 18 candidates in each of the three conditions, yielding slightly more than 50 participants per condition. Because we did not know what effect size to predict in this first experiment, we arrived at this number because it was feasible at this laboratory, offered multiple evaluators for each target, and was our best guess at the sample size needed to detect an effect of interest in this experiment. Fifty participants per condition yields 80% power to detect a medium effect size. Procedure. We recruited MBA students to participate as job candidates in a 20-minute study on how people make hiring decisions. Candidates first named the company for which they would most like to work, and then considered (for one minute) the pitch they would make to encourage this company to evaluate them positively and to hire them. Candidates made both a spoken and a written pitch to prospective employers (order counterbalanced). In the spoken pitch condition, we told candidates we would videotape them as they gave their pitch and that they should speak directly to the camera. We told candidates they had two minutes to talk, although we allowed them to reach the natural conclusion of their pitch (actual videos times ranged from 49 seconds to 2 minutes and 30 seconds). In the written pitch condition, we told candidates to compose a letter to a prospective employer. Candidates had ten minutes 1 to type their letter on a computer, after which we told them to finish their thought and stop typing. After finishing both their spoken and written pitches, candidates completed a short survey asking them to predict (1) How positively someone would evaluate their written pitch (0=Not at all positively; 6=Very positively), (2) How interested someone would be in hiring them after reading their written pitch (0=Not at all interested; 6=Very interested), (3) How positively someone would evaluate their spoken pitch (0=Not at all positively; 6=Very positively), (4) How interested someone would be in hiring them after listened to their spoken pitch (0=Not at all

8 Speech Conveys Intellect, 8 interested; 6=Very interested), and (5) how many times they had given their pitch before. We collected these predictions in order to examine how candidates expected they would be judged. Theoretically, these expectations matter because they indicate whether the cues that convey mental capacities in social interaction are obvious to those in the midst of the interaction or subtle. Practially, these expectations matter because they could guide how candidates potential employers. A candidate who believes his spoken pitch will be judged exactly the same as his written pitch may see no reason to seek voice time with a potential employer. A separate sample of participants then served as hypothetical employers. In this experiment, we used only the spoken pitches from the candidates as stimuli. We assigned participants to one of three conditions: video (watching and listening to candidates spoken pitches), audio (only listening to pitches), or text (reading the transcribed pitches 2 ). After seeing, hearing, or reading a candidate s pitch, participants completed a survey. The survey first explained: You just [watched/listened to/read the transcript of] an MBA student from the University of Chicago Booth Business School talking about why he or she should be hired for his or her ideal job. This job is in the service sector and it requires a highly competent, thoughtful, and intelligent employee. Your role in this study is to pretend that you are the employer who is considering this candidate for the job. Based on the [clip/transcript] that you just [watched/listened to/read], please let us know your impressions of the candidate. You must evaluate this candidate against all of the other candidates who are also applying for the same job you can assume these other candidates are also high achieving MBA students. Participants then answered three questions about the MBA student's intellect: (1) How competent did the candidate seem compared to an average candidate for an MBA-level position? (-5=Much less competent; 5=Much more competent), (2) How thoughtful did the candidate seem compared to an average candidate for an MBA-level position? (-5=Much less thoughtful; 5=Much more thoughtful), and (3) How intelligent did the candidate seem compared to an

9 Speech Conveys Intellect, 9 average candidate for an MBA-level position? (-5=Much less intelligent; 5=Much more intelligent). Participants then reported their general impressions of the candidate on three items: how much they liked the candidate (0=Did not like at all; 10=Extremely liked), how positive their overall impression of the candidate was (0=Not at all positive; 10=Extremely positive), and how negative their overall impression of the candidate was (0=Not at all negative; 10=Extremely negative). Finally, participants rated how likely they would be to hire the candidate for the job (0=Not at all likely; 10=Extremely likely). Results Job Candidates Predictions. The MBA students were somewhat experienced giving their spoken pitches. On average, they had already given their pitches 1.44 (SD = 1.58) times. These participants did not predict being evaluated differently when employers listened to their pitches (M = 3.61, SD = 0.78) than when they read their written pitches (M = 3.22, SD = 0.94), paired t(17) = 1.20, p =.25, d =.45, nor did they expect any difference in the likelihood of getting hired when employers listened to their pitches (M = 3.28, SD =.89) than when they read their written pitches (M = 3.00, SD = 1.08), paired t(17) =.80, p =.44, d =.29. The MBAs did not have strong expectations that others evaluations would depend on whether they were heard or read. We directly test the veracity of these candidates predictions in Experiment 2. Because these predictions are underpowered with only eighteen candidates, we collected two more samples of job candidates in an effort to better understand candidates intuitions (See Supplemental Materials for full details). Sixteen Master s degree (MA) students (M age = 29.3, SD age = 5.94, 11 males) and forty community members (M age = 28.6, SD age = 9.03, 28 males) currently searching for jobs created written and spoken pitches for their preferred employers. These participants then made the same predictions as the MBA job candidates.

10 Speech Conveys Intellect, 10 Consistent with the candidates predictions, neither sample expected to be evaluated more favorably by employers who listened to their pitches than those who read their pitches. MA students predicted no significant difference in how they would be evaluated by employers who listened versus read their pitches (Ms = 3.88 vs. 3.94, SDs = 1.20 vs. 1.18), paired t(15) = 0.15, p =.88, nor did they predict a significant difference in the likelihood of getting hired (Ms = 3.94 vs. 4.06, SDs = 1.34 vs. 1.00), paired t(15) =.36, p =.73, d =.10. The community members predicted that they would be evaluated significantly more positively by employers who read their pitches than by employers who listened to their pitches (Ms = 4.53 vs. 3.52, SDs = 1.26 vs. 1.38), paired t (39) = 4.47, p <.01, d =.76. Community members also predicted a greater likelihood of being hired by an employer who read their pitch than why an employer who listened to their pitch (Ms = 4.35 vs. 3.53, SDs = 1.29 vs. 1.41), paired t (39) = 3.69, p <.01, d =.61). We are reluctant to speculate without further data about why the community sample predicted being seen as having greater intellect in writing than in speaking. We simply note that none of the three samples expect to be seen as more mindful, and more employable, when employers heard their voice. Hypothetical Employers Evaluations. Evaluators reported their impressions of one of our 18 MBA students. To ease presentation of the results, we report all analyses in the text at the level of the individual evaluators. However, we also analyzed data in all of our studies using hierarchical linear models to account for the nesting of evaluators within students (e.g., as recommended by Judd, Westfall, & Kenny, 2012). To do this, we created multilevel randomintercept, random-slope models with evaluators (Level 1) nested within students (Level 2) treating experimental condition as a fixed effect and the student being evaluated as a random

11 Speech Conveys Intellect, 11 effect. These analyses all yield results that are as strong or stronger than the more conservative tests we report in the text. We report these HLM analyses in the Supporting Online Materials. As predicted, evaluators' beliefs about job candidates' intellect their competence, thoughtfulness, and intelligence (α = 0.91) depended on the communication medium, F(2, 159) = 10.81, p <.01, η 2 = As shown in Figure 1, evaluators who heard the pitch rated the candidate's intellect more highly (M = 0.91, SD = 1.79) than evaluators who read the transcript of the pitch (M = -0.70, SD = 2.81), t(159) = 3.79, p <.01, 95% CI [0.70, 2.51], d = Evaluators who watched the pitch did not evaluate the candidate's intellect (M = 1.09, SD = 1.80) differently than evaluators who listened to the pitch, t(159) < 1. Simply adding more individuating information about a person through visual cues, such as their physical appearance and nonverbal mannerisms, had no measurable impact on evaluations of the candidate's mind. A candidate's intellect was conveyed primarily through his or her voice. Perhaps more important, evaluators who heard the pitch also reported a more favorable impression of the candidate liking the candidate more and having a more positive and less negative impression of the candidate (α = 0.89) than evaluators who read the pitch (Ms = 5.69 vs. 4.78, SDs = 1.96 vs. 2.64), t(159) = 2.16, p =.04, 95% CI [.02, 1.80], d =.34. Evaluators who heard the pitch also reported being significantly more likely to hire the candidate than evaluators who read exactly the same pitch (Ms = 4.34 vs. 3.06, SDs = 2.26 vs. 3.15), t(159) = 2.49, p =.01, 95% CI [.22, 2.34], d =.39. These results again did not appear to stem from simply providing more individuating information about a candidate, because evaluators who watched the pitch did not report a more favorable impression or an increased likelihood of hiring the candidate (Ms = 5.98 & 4.46, SDs = 1.91 & 2.43) than those who heard the pitch, ts(159) < 1.

12 Evaluators' z-scored evaluations of caniddates Speech Conveys Intellect, 12 Fig. 1. Evaluators ratings of job candidates intellect, general impressions of candidates, and likelihood of hiring candidates in the video, audio, and transcript conditions (Experiment 1) Video Audio Transcript Intellect General Impression Hiring Likelihood We predicted that a candidate's voice would make him or her seem more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent, which in turn would lead employers to a more favorable general impression, and increase the perceived likelihood of hiring the candidate. Figure 2 supports this hypothesis: evaluators perceptions of a candidate's intellect and evaluators general impressions sequentially mediate the effect of hearing the candidate's voice (audio condition) versus reading (text condition) the pitches on hiring decisions. When we included perceived intellect and general impressions in the model, the effect of communication medium became nonsignificant (from β = 1.21, SE = 0.54, p =.03, to β = -0.17, SE = 0.30, p =.57). A 5000-sample bootstrap test estimated a significant indirect effect of perceived intellect of 0.80 (SE = 0.28, 95% CI [.33, 1.44]), no indirect effect of general impressions, (SE = 0.18, 95% CI [-.59, 0.13]), and a significant combined indirect effect with both mediators of 0.79 (SE = 0.25, 95% CI [.33, 1.33])

13 Speech Conveys Intellect, 13 (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). These analyses suggest that a potential job candidate s voice conveyed intellect, leading to a more positive impression and increasing hypothetical interest in hiring among evaluators. This is consistent with our hypothesis that speech, because of the natural paralinguistic cues in voice that are particularly well-equipped to express thought, can reveal a person s mental capacities. There was no systematic evidence that being able to see someone in addition to hearing them affected mental capacity inferences, suggesting it is not merely the addition of individuating information that reveals a person s mind. Rather, job candidates intellect seemed greater when observers heard (vs. read) their speech regardless of the total amount of information in the communication medium. Fig. 2. Mediation model testing the effect of experimental condition on perceived intellect, general impressions, and reported likelihood of hiring job candidate (Experiment 1). Intellect (α=0.91) β=0.77, SE=0.06, p<.01 Impressions (α=0.89) β=1.71, SE=0.46, p<.01 β=-0.35, SE=0.31, p=.26 β=0.47, SE=0.10, p<.01 β =0.59, SE=0.10, p<.01 Experimental Condition: Audio vs. Transcript β=-0.17, SE=0.30, p=.57 Hiring Likelihood Experiment 2: Speaking vs. Writing Experiment 1 tested the importance of a person s voice in evaluations by transcribing a speech to ensure identical semantic content. Experiment 2 provides a replication test of Experiment 1 s main result and also adds candidates written pitches as a critical third condition.

14 Speech Conveys Intellect, 14 If the written pitch is evaluated like the spoken pitch, then candidates voices are not necessary to convey intellect and the act of transcribing a speech would apparently explain Experiment 1 s results. If the written pitch is evaluated like the transcript, then this would provide stronger evidence that a person s voice conveys their mental capacities. Method Participants. To account for the additional variance we anticipated in this experiment by varying not only the communication medium (spoken versus text) but also the semantic content (transcribed speech versus written pitch), we increased our targeted sample size from Experiment 1 to 4 evaluators per speaker (216 evaluators, total). Because we did not know what sample size to expect in this experiment, this was our best estimate of the sample size we would need to detect an effect of interest. Our final sample was 218 visitors to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry (M age = 35.0, SD age = 12.8, 106 males) who evaluated candidates in exchange for a food item. We obtained more than our targeted number of participants because we continued running through the end of a scheduled room reservation. Procedure. Both the spoken and written pitches from the 18 MBA students in Experiment 1 served as our stimuli. We assigned participants serving as hypothetical employers to one of three conditions: audio (listening to candidates spoken pitches), transcript (reading transcriptions of candidates spoken pitches), or written (reading candidates own written pitches). After participants either listened to, read the transcribed speech, or read the written pitch, they completed a survey that included the same items as Experiment 1. Results Evaluators beliefs about job candidates intellect their competence, thoughtfulness, and intelligence (α = 0.88) again varied by communication medium, F(2, 215) = 3.07, p =.05, η 2 = As shown in Figure 3, evaluators who heard the candidate s pitches rated the candidate s

15 Evaluators' z-scored evaluations of caniddates Speech Conveys Intellect, 15 intellect more highly (M = 1.12, SD = 1.85) than evaluators who read the pitch transcript (M = 0.35, SD = 2.41), t(215) = 2.09, p =.04, 95% CI [0.06, 1.47], d = 0.29, or evaluators who read the candidate s written pitch (M = 0.31, SD = 2.34), t(215) = 2.20, p =.03, 95% CI [0.12, 1.50], d = Evaluations of the candidate s intellect did not differ between the transcript and written pitch conditions, t(215) < 1. Fig. 3. Evaluators ratings of job candidates intellect, general impressions of candidates, and likelihood of hiring candidates in the writing, transcript, and audio conditions (Experiment 2) Writing Transcript Audio Intellect General Impression Hiring Likelihood Evaluators general impression of the job candidate liking, positive impression, and negative impression (reverse scored) of the candidate (α = 0.87) also varied by condition, F(2, 215) = 4.72, p =.01, η 2 = Specifically, evaluators who heard the pitch reported a more favorable impression of the candidate than evaluators who read the pitch transcript (Ms = 6.30 vs. 5.44, SDs = 1.78 vs. 2.39), t(215) = 2.31, p =.02, 95% CI [0.16, 1.54], d = 0.32, or than evaluators who read the candidate s writing (M = 5.23, SD = 2.46), t(215) = 2.90, p <.01, 95%

16 Speech Conveys Intellect, 16 CI [0.37, 1.77], d = Evaluators who heard the pitch also reported being more likely to hire candidates than evaluators who read the speech transcript (Ms = 4.83 vs. 3.77, SDs = 2.53 vs. 2.88), t(215) = 2.30, p =.02, 95% CI [0.15, 1.97], d = 0.31, and marginally more likely than evaluators who read the candidate s writing (M = 3.99, SD = 2.73), t(215) = 1.84, p =.07, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.73], d = General impressions did not vary between the transcript and written pitch conditions, ts(215) < 1. Finally, we again tested whether evaluators perceptions of candidates intellect and evaluators general impressions sequentially mediated the effect of hearing versus reading the pitches on hiring decisions. Because the contrast between the audio and writing conditions was marginally significant with a two-tailed test (p =.07), a sequential meditational analysis between these two conditions is technically unjustified. In a sequential meditational test comparing the audio and transcript conditions alone, including perceived intellect and general impressions in the model made the effect of communication medium non-significant (from β = 1.08, SE = 0.24, p =.02, to β = 0.08, SE = 0.24, p =.74). A 5000-sample bootstrap test estimated a significant indirect effect of perceived intellect of 0.42 (SE = 0.20, 95% CI [.05,.83]), no indirect effect of general impressions, 0.14 (SE = 0.14, 95% CI [-.11,.43]), and a significant combined indirect effect of both mediators of 0.41 (SE = 0.19, 95% CI [.06,.79]) (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Shown in Figure 4, a sequential meditational analysis comparing voice (in the audio condition) against text (transcript and written combined) yielded the same conclusions. Including perceived intellect and general impressions in this model made the effect of communication medium nonsignificant (from β = 0.85, SE = 0.45, p =.06, to β = -0.16, SE = 0.27, p =.56). A 5000-sample bootstrap test estimated a significant indirect effect of perceived intellect of 0.41 (SE = 0.17, 95% CI [.10,.76]), no indirect effect of general impressions, 0.21 (SE = 0.12, 95% CI [-.01,

17 Speech Conveys Intellect, 17.46]), and a significant combined indirect effect of both mediators of 0.37 (SE = 0.15, 95% CI [.09,.67]). These results both replicate and extend those of Experiment 1. A person s voice again seems to communicate a thoughtful mind, an effect that emerged both when the semantic content of a speech was held constant by transcribing it and also when speakers were allowed to craft a written pitch themselves. The capacity for intellect, it appears, is more readily conveyed through one s voice. The written pitch condition, of course, does not indicate that it is impossible for a talented writer to overcome the limitations of text alone, but only that our MBA students in Experiment 1 did not predict the need to do so and then did not do so spontaneously. Fig. 4. Mediation model testing the effect of experimental condition on perceived intellect, general impressions, and reported likelihood of hiring job candidate (Experiment 2). Intellect (α=0.88) β=0.78, SE=0.04, p<.01 Impressions (α=0.87) β=0.81, SE=0.33, p=.01 β=-0.36, SE=0.21, p=.09 β=0.51, SE=0.07, p<.01 β =0.59, SE=0.07, p<.01 Experimental Condition: Audio vs. Text β=-0.04, SE=0.21, p=.85 Experiments 3a & 3b: Giving Voice to Text Hiring Likelihood Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that removing a speaker's voice from their spoken pitch can make the speaker seem less mindful: less thoughtful, rational, and intelligent. Experiments 3a and 3b provide a more comprehensive test of our hypothesis by examining whether adding voice to text likewise affects evaluations of the author s intellect. In Experiment 3a, we recruited four

18 Speech Conveys Intellect, 18 trained stage actors to read all eighteen pitches. To ensure that our results are not due to some aspect unique to actors voices, we conducted a replication with a more representative sample of readers in Experiment 3b. Experiment 3a Method Participants. The four most experienced stage actors (M age = 20, 2 males) who responded to our request for assistance (from a pool of 12 applicants) participated in exchange for $25 each. We predetermined a sample size of at least 250 participants, approximately 3 participants observing each candidate for each condition as we had done in Experiment 1. Our final sample was 264 visitors to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry (M age = 35.03, SD age = 14.40, 124 males) who evaluated candidates in exchange for a food item. We obtained more than our targeted number of participants because we continued running through the end of a scheduled room reservation after we reached our sample size target. Procedure. Actors came to a recording booth, where an experimenter gave them the following instructions: Today, you will be reading 18 different elevator pitches from University of Chicago Booth business school students. These 18 students were told to pick their ideal job and write a pitch to the employer about why they would be a good fit for the job. We want you to pretend that you are the MBA student who wrote the pitch. We want you imbue your words with all of the thoughts, emotions, and substance that the writer him/herself felt. We want you to read it as if you were actually coming up with the lines naturally off the top of your head, as in a real conversation, rather than reading form a script. We want you to speak as naturally as you would if you were making a real pitch to an employer right now. We designed these instructions in order to maintain the natural paralinguistic cues in readers voices, so that the reading would not sound artificial or strange to listeners. Actors read all 18 written pitches 3 from Experiment 1 out loud, which we later separated into 18 sound files. We observed no gender effects Experiments 1 or 2, but randomly assigning evaluators to a

19 Speech Conveys Intellect, 19 speaker's gender enables us to unconfound a speaker's gender from the pitch's content to test for gender effects hold semantic content constant (Brooks, Huang, Kearney, & Murray, 2014; Eagly & Mladinic, 1989). We randomly assigned participants serving as employers to one of three conditions: writing (reading written pitches), female voice (listening to one of the female actor s voice reading the written pitches out loud), or male voice (listening to one of the male actor s voice reading the written pitches out loud). Participants then answered the same survey used in Experiment 1. Experiment 3a Results There were no significant differences between the first and second female speakers, nor between the first and second male speakers, on evaluators judgments of the candidates intellect (α = 0.84), their general impressions of candidates (α = 0.80), or likelihood of hiring candidates 4, ts < 1.70, ps >.09. We therefore collapsed across the two speakers for each gender in the following analyses, leaving three randomly assigned conditions (writing, spoken female, or spoken male). As predicted, evaluators' beliefs about candidates intellect varied significantly by experimental condition, F(2, 262) = 6.34, p <.01, η 2 = Shown in Figure 5, evaluators judged candidates to have greater intellect when they listened to the female and male speakers (Ms = 2.36 & 2.33, SDs = 1.59 & 1.72) than when they read the same pitches (M = 1.37, SD = 2.19), ts(262) = 3.29 & 3.21, ps <.01, 95% CIs [0.38, 1.59] & [0.33, 1.59], ds = 0.41 & We observed weaker effects of experimental condition on evaluators general impressions of candidates, F(2, 262) = 2.76, p =.07, η 2 = Evaluators had marginally more positive impressions when they listened to the female speakers (M = 6.33, SD = 1.82) than when they read the same pitches, (M = 5.77, SD = 2.14), t(262) = 1.80, p =.07, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.21], d = Evaluators had more negative impressions of male speakers (M =

20 Evaluators' z-scored evaluations of caniddates Speech Conveys Intellect, , SD = 1.78) than of female speakers, t(262) = -2.12, p =.04, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.06], d = 0.26, but evaluations of male speakers did not differ from evaluations of those who read the same pitches, t(262) < 1. Evaluators who listened to female speakers also reported being more likely to hire them (M = 6.31, SD = 2.06) than evaluators who read pitches (M = 4.96, SD = 2.86), t(259) = 3.43, p <.01, 95% CI [0.56, 2.13], d = 0.42, and marginally more likely than the evaluators who listened to male speakers (M = 5.69, SD = 2.27), t(259) = 1.91, p =.06, 95% CI [0.02, 1.20], d = Evaluators who listened to male voices were also marginally more likely to hire them than those who read the same pitches, t(259) = 1.86, p =.06, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.56], d = Fig. 5. Evaluators ratings of job candidates intellect, general impressions of candidates, and likelihood of hiring candidates in the writing, male speaker, and female speaker conditions (Experiment 3a) Writing Male Speakers Female Speakers Intellect General Impression Hiring Likelihood Combining the speaker s gender and just comparing written versus spoken pitches, we observed that evaluators who listened to the pitches (n = 212) believed candidates had greater intellect and were reported being more likely to hire them than evaluators who read the same pitches (n = 53), ts(262) = 3.57 & 2.89, ps <.01, 95% CIs [0.44, 1.51] & [0.33, 1.75], ds = 0.44

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47 (2011) 915 922 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp Give them

More information

Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events

Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, Vol. 39, No. 5, 806-820 Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events Neil D. Weinstein Department of Human Ecology and Social Sciences Cook College,

More information

Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think?

Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 89, No. 6, 925 936 0022-3514/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 Egocentrism Over

More information

WHEN WE NEED A HUMAN: MOTIVATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM

WHEN WE NEED A HUMAN: MOTIVATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM EPLEY Motivational ET AL. Determinants Social Cognition, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2008, pp. 143-155 WHEN WE NEED A HUMAN: MOTIVATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM Nicholas Epley and Adam Waytz University of

More information

Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus

Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 92, No. 5, 821 833 0022-3514/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.821 Inferring the Popularity

More information

More Time, More Work: How Time Limits Bias Estimates of Project Duration and Scope

More Time, More Work: How Time Limits Bias Estimates of Project Duration and Scope 1 More Time, More Work: How Time Limits Bias Estimates of Project Duration and Scope Abstract We propose that time limits systematically bias predictions of workers completion times, even when the limits

More information

Climate Surveys: Useful Tools to Help Colleges and Universities in Their Efforts to Reduce and Prevent Sexual Assault

Climate Surveys: Useful Tools to Help Colleges and Universities in Their Efforts to Reduce and Prevent Sexual Assault Climate Surveys: Useful Tools to Help Colleges and Universities in Their Efforts to Reduce and Prevent Sexual Assault Why are we releasing information about climate surveys? Sexual assault is a significant

More information

Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment

Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2002, Vol. 83, No. 2, 284 299 0022-3514/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.284 Why Do We Punish?

More information

How Do You Know It? How Can You Show It?

How Do You Know It? How Can You Show It? How Do You Know It? How Can You Show It? Penny Reed Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative Gayl Bowser Oregon Technology Access Program Jane Korsten Responsive Centers for Psychology and Learning Wisconsin

More information

Is that paper really due today? : differences in first-generation and traditional college students understandings of faculty expectations

Is that paper really due today? : differences in first-generation and traditional college students understandings of faculty expectations DOI 10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5 Is that paper really due today? : differences in first-generation and traditional college students understandings of faculty expectations Peter J. Collier Æ David L. Morgan

More information

LISTENING AND LEADERSHIP: A STUDY ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP

LISTENING AND LEADERSHIP: A STUDY ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP LISTENING AND LEADERSHIP: A STUDY ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP BY: Gregory L. Rynders Battalion Chief Sandy Fire Department Sandy, Utah An applied research project submitted to the National

More information

No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional Rationalization of Women s Success in Male Female Teams

No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional Rationalization of Women s Success in Male Female Teams Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 90, No. 5, 905 916 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905 No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional

More information

The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not Anticipate

The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not Anticipate ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL COGNITION The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not Anticipate Timothy D. Wilson, David B. Centerbar, and Deborah A. Kermer University of Virginia

More information

Evaluation. valuation of any kind is designed to document what happened in a program.

Evaluation. valuation of any kind is designed to document what happened in a program. Using Case Studies to do Program Evaluation E valuation of any kind is designed to document what happened in a program. Evaluation should show: 1) what actually occurred, 2) whether it had an impact, expected

More information

The importance people place on money affects numerous aspects of

The importance people place on money affects numerous aspects of WHEN DOES MONEY MAKE MONEY MORE IMPORTANT? SURVEY AND EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE SANFORD E. DEVOE, JEFFREY PFEFFER, AND BYRON Y. LEE* The authors investigate how the amount and source of income affects the

More information

Learning with Media. Robert B. Kozma. University of Michigan. Abstract

Learning with Media. Robert B. Kozma. University of Michigan. Abstract Kozma, R.B. (1991). "Learning with media." Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212. Learning with Media Robert B. Kozma University of Michigan Abstract This article describes learning with media

More information

If You Need Help, Just Ask: Underestimating Compliance With Direct Requests for Help

If You Need Help, Just Ask: Underestimating Compliance With Direct Requests for Help Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 95, No. 1, 128 143 0022-3514/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128 If You Need Help,

More information

Handshaking, Gender, Personality, and First Impressions

Handshaking, Gender, Personality, and First Impressions PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Handshaking, Gender, Personality, and First Impressions William F. Chaplin, Jeffrey B. Phillips, Jonathan D. Brown, Nancy R. Cianton, and Jennifer L. Stein

More information

Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm

Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm Evolutionary Psychology human-nature.com/ep 2003. 1: 42-69 Original Article Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm William

More information

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6. ] 121-1134 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/99/S3.00 Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties

More information

Increasing Saving Behavior Through Age-Progressed Renderings of

Increasing Saving Behavior Through Age-Progressed Renderings of HAL E. HERSHFIELD, DANIEL G. GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. SHARPE, JESSE FOX, LEO YEYKELIS, LAURA L. CARSTENSEN, and JEREMY N. BAILENSON Many people fail to save what they will need for retirement. Research on

More information

Sample Review by Micro Editor

Sample Review by Micro Editor Sample Review by Micro Editor I enjoyed reading this paper, which has a number of noteworthy strengths. Understanding the boundary conditions for the psychological and behavioral effects of transformational

More information

Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separated Choices

Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separated Choices Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1995, Vol. I, No. 1,34-49 Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. I076-898X/95/S3.00 Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy

More information

Understanding Student Differences

Understanding Student Differences Understanding Student Differences RICHARD M. FELDER Department of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University REBECCA BRENT Education Designs, Inc. ABSTRACT Students have different levels of motivation,

More information

When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial. Product Enhancements GEORGE E. NEWMAN MARGARITA GORLIN

When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial. Product Enhancements GEORGE E. NEWMAN MARGARITA GORLIN 1 When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements GEORGE E. NEWMAN MARGARITA GORLIN RAVI DHAR 2 George E. Newman (george.newman@yale.edu)

More information

It s Not What They Do, It s How They Do It: Athlete Experiences of Great Coaching

It s Not What They Do, It s How They Do It: Athlete Experiences of Great Coaching International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 4 Number 1 2009 93 It s Not What They Do, It s How They Do It: Athlete Experiences of Great Coaching Andrea J. Becker Department of Kinesiology,

More information

A Usability Study and Critique of Two Password Managers

A Usability Study and Critique of Two Password Managers A Usability Study and Critique of Two Password Managers Sonia Chiasson and P.C. van Oorschot School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada chiasson@scs.carleton.ca Robert Biddle Human

More information

On Some Necessary Conditions of Learning

On Some Necessary Conditions of Learning THE JOURNAL OF THE LEARNING SCIENCES, 15(2), 193 220 Copyright 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. On Some Necessary Conditions of Learning Ference Marton Department of Education Göteborg University,

More information

Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men?

Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2006, pp. 48 63 Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Christine R. Harris, Michael Jenkins University of California,

More information

Frequency illusions and other fallacies q

Frequency illusions and other fallacies q Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91 (2003) 296 309 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp Frequency illusions and other fallacies q Steven

More information