I am a Professor of Psychology at San Diego State University and have spent the past couple of decades studying the role that one’s voice plays in evoking trust, credibility and persuasion. Specifically, I have been interested in vocal indicators of deception and how one’s voice can be altered to appear more trustworthy and persuasive.
The idea for my research came from an unlikely source – my wife. I had just entered graduate school at the University of California Santa Barbara and was looking for a topic that would not only be interesting but also a good fit for my particular skill set (I majored in philosophy as an undergrad). What could be more appropriate than investigating the relation between deception and one’s voice?
My wife had worked as a paralegal while attending school and was constantly telling me stories about dubious attorneys she had interacted with over the years. While she was skeptical about their honesty, she couldn’t put her finger on what it was exactly about them that made her suspicious. The only clues she could come up with were nonverbal cues such as fidgeting or averting eye contact. So I decided to investigate whether there were any other nonverbal cues rooted in one’s voice that might be able to reveal when someone is lying or
Do you want to bring more warmth and charisma to your speaking voice?
Do you want to get your message across with more clarity and impact?
Do you want to be seen as a leader who is confident, stylish and authoritative?
If so, you may want a voice coach. But be careful: many voice coaches are not adequately trained in the psychology of persuasion. Many voice coaches think that a “good” voice is one that sounds like them. The best voice coaches understand what studies on persuasion show: that the most effective way to bring out your unique vocal essence is by improving trust and credibility. A high level of trust and credibility can make even the most monotone speaker sound fascinating.
I had a chance to watch The Wire last week and was impressed by the role of Jimmy McNulty (played by Dominic West). There were two things that particularly stood out for me. First, there was how convincing he was when he impersonated Sgt. Rawls. Second, I thought his voice was quite rough and raspy in one episode and then quite soft, smooth and even somewhat imperious in another episode.
Voice is such a powerful form of non-verbal behavior that it can make us appear more masculine or feminine, more competent or incompetent, more dominant or submissive, more honest or deceptive, more healthy or sick. Thus we may ask: what does Jimmy McNulty’s voice reveal about his credibility? A good place to start would be to consider the research on vocal rhetoric, which focuses on what aspects of the voice are persuasively effective.
The most recent paper on this topic (Fitzsimons et al., 2008) found that people with a higher pitched voice were perceived as being less intelligent — but only when they were giving a low information message! When the message was high information (like Jimmy McNulty impersonating Sgt. Rawls), people with higher pitched voices were seen as being more intelligent than those with lower pitched voices
I’ve been researching the science of persuasion for years, and I’m always on the lookout for fresh evidence that can help you build trust and credibility with your customers.
Today I’d like to share a fascinating new study from a team of researchers at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, who found that people are able to detect social class differences in others’ voices and that these differences influence our decisions.
The researchers started by recording the voices of 122 men and women. The subjects were asked to read the same script aloud in three contexts: one in which they were impersonating someone who was high-status, one in which they were impersonating someone who was low-status, and one in which they spoke naturally.
The recordings were then played for more than 1,000 volunteers on Mechanical Turk, who rated how high or low status they thought each voice belonged to. (This is what’s known as a “within-subjects” design, since all subjects heard all voices).
The experiment’s results were clear: listeners correctly identified the high-status speakers, even though those speakers had been deliberately trying to sound lower status than normal. In other words, we’re not only able to tell whether or not someone is high status just by listening to them speak
While it is true that we are not our voices, we are also not immune to their influence. In fact, I would argue that we are hostage to their influence. Research in the area of speech prosody (the science of pitch and rhythm) has consistently shown that people make judgments about speakers on the basis of pitch variation alone. Speakers who use a monotone voice or fail to vary pitch while speaking tend to be perceived as boring, uninterested, or untrustworthy.
But it’s not just a matter of pitch variation. We also make judgments about speakers based on the relative size of the pitch range (i.e., “how high” and “how low” a speaker speaks). For instance, research shows that speakers who use a relatively small pitch range are more likely to be seen as depressed or disinterested, whereas those with a relatively large pitch range tend to be seen as credible, confident and intelligent. Pitch range also acts as an index for authority; in general, people with larger vocal ranges are perceived as being more competent and persuasive – characteristics that are vital for leaders and communicators alike.
It is important to note here that the correlation between voice and credibility is one of correlation rather than causality; in other words, it’s possible
I am a body language and voice coach who works with people from all walks of life to help them communicate more effectively. Most people come to me because they have a job which requires them to speak in front of others and they want to be able to do it better. Their jobs can range from public speaking in front of large audiences, or in small meetings or just one-on-one.
My work has been featured in The New York Times, Fast Company and Vogue.
I get asked a lot of questions about voice and speech, but the one thing I hear the most is: What is the right way to speak?
The short answer is this: There is no right way to speak! There are, however, things that you can do with your voice – and your body – that will make you more effective at communicating. And when you do these things well, others will see you as credible and trustworthy.
My goal for the blog is to provide practical information about how your body affects your communication. I want it to be useful for anyone who uses their voice for work or pleasure – from actors and politicians to parents and teachers. The best way for me to do that is through sharing my own experience working with clients, as well as research about what
The voice is an important tool in establishing your credibility, with sound quality as well as sound. But it’s not just a matter of trusting voices; it’s also about being trusted.
A study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology tested whether the qualities of a person’s voice affected his ability to influence others. In this case, the researchers were interested in whether people would be more likely to listen to and obey commands from someone with a “credible” voice than someone with an “uncredible” voice.
They did this by having subjects evaluate a hypothetical employee whom they had never met or heard speak (the fictional employee was described as somewhat likable, but not particularly impressive). After rating the employee, subjects were then asked to listen to one-minute recordings of two people speaking, each of which contained several commands and requests. One recording was made by someone with a credible-sounding voice and one was made by someone with an uncredible-sounding voice.
Subjects were asked to take notes during the recordings, during which they were unable to see or hear anything other than the speakers’ voices. They were then asked how many commands they had heard. The findings? Participants who listened to the recording with the credible voice recalled hearing significantly more commands than those listening to
