The Sound of Intellect: Speech Reveals a Thoughtful Mind, Increasing a Job Candidate’s Appeal
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 to, or read job candidates' pitches about why they should be hired. These evaluators rated a candidate as more competent, thoughtful, and intelligent when they heard a pitch rather than read it and, as a result, had a more favorable impression of the candidate 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, produced the same results. Adding visual cues to audio pitches did not alter evaluations of the candidates. For conveying one's intellect, it is important that one's voice, quite literally, be heard.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Nonverbal variance in speech (e.g., pitch, pace) is associated with judgments of communicators' mental capacities.
“These experiments also provide early insight into why a person's voice is humanizing: the nonverbal variance in speech (e.g.variance in pitch, pace) is associated with judgments of communicators' mental capacities;”
From Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Observers are more likely to believe an ambiguous agent is human rather than a machine when hearing a human voice, compared with reading human-created text or seeing a human communicator.
“Directly supporting this possibility, one set of experiments demonstrates that observers are more likely to believe an ambiguous agent is a human (versus a machine) when hearing a human voice-compared to reading human-created text or seeing a human communicator [9].”
From Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Communicators whose voices lack nonverbal variance are not judged differently from communicators whose opinions are read via text.
“therefore, communicators with voices which lack such variance (and therefore sound machine-like) are not judged differently from communicators whose opinions are read via text.”
From Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Reading, versus hearing, a person's opinions makes the communicator appear less mentally capable-less thoughtful and emotional.
“Second, reading, versus hearing, ones' opinions also makes the communicator appear less mentally capable-less thoughtful and emotional [9,10 ].”
From Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 101
- Authors
- Schroeder, J., & Epley, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
- ORCID
- Schroeder, Juliana
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-04-29
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 877-891
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2164171543
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 8.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- intellect, voice, vocal cues, impression formation, hiring decisions, job applicants, verbal communication, visual cues
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Communication, Cues, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Problem Solving, Social Perception, Speech, Voice, Young Adult
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
