CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Tactile and Sensory InteractionsLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesEmotion and Mood Recognition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy

Open access
Kraus, Michael W.·2017·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/amp0000147

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This research tests the prediction that voice-only communication increases empathic accuracy over communication across senses. We theorized that people often intentionally communicate their feelings and internal states through the voice, and as such, voice-only communication allows perceivers to focus their attention on the channel of communication most active and accurate in conveying emotions to others. We used 5 experiments to test this hypothesis (N = 1,772), finding that voice-only communication elicits higher rates of empathic accuracy relative to vision-only and multisense communication both while engaging in interactions and perceiving emotions in recorded interactions of strangers. Experiments 4 and 5 reveal that voice-only communication is particularly likely to enhance empathic accuracy through increasing focused attention on the linguistic and paralinguistic vocal cues that accompany speech. Overall, the studies question the primary role of the face in communication of emotion, and offer new insights for improving emotion recognition accuracy in social interactions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000147

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

4 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–162 of 162

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kraus, M. W.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Kraus, Michael W.
ORCID
Kraus, Michael W.
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2017-10
Volume
72
Issue
7
Pages
644-654
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/amp0000147
OpenAlex
W2762093149
Cited by
162
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 27
FWCI
8.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
empathic accuracy, emotion perception, multisensory communication, paralinguistic cues, vocal cues, attentional focus, emotion recognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Social Perception, Speech, Voice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review