F0 and intensity in charismatic political speech: A cross-cultural study
Résumé
Charismatic leaders manipulate vocal quality to convey different traits and types of charisma, arouse emotional states, achieve goals, and to be recognized as group leaders [1]. Fundamental frequency (F0) and intensity (dB),as part of overall vocal quality, are important characteristics to convey emotional states and social status in bothspontaneous and non-spontaneous speech (e.g., [2] for F0, [3] for intensity). In this work we studied F0 andintensity performance by charismatic political leaders from different languages and cultures, involved indifferent communication contexts. Our main hypothesis was that charismatic speakers use significantly differentF0 and intensity ranges in different communication contexts, following cognitive strategies of persuasion. Whenthe main goal of political speakers is to persuade followers to vote for them, they stretch their vocal range to itshighest and lowest acoustical limits so as to arouse higher emotionally negative (i.e., anxiety) and positive states(i.e., reassured). When the main goal is to persuade peers with similar social status, such as other politicians,they restrain their vocal range so as to mostly activate negative emotions (i.e., fear) and convey dominance.Finally, when the speakers do not deal with any political topic the persuasive goal changes and speakers use aneven narrower vocal range, much closer to his normal phonatory range (i.e., healthy voice.)Results show that political leaders speaking different languages and from different cultures use a similarvocal strategy that we called Vocis Variatio Delectat [see also 1]. According to this strategy, politicians speakwith F0 and intensity ranges which are significantly correlated to the context of communication. This lastdepends on the speakers’ persuasive goals, the political vs. informal topics they address, the chance to be chosenas leaders and/or the risk to loose the leadership status, the diversity (gender, age, education, ethnical group,social status) and the size of the audience. The formal-monologue communication context (MON) is very riskyfor leadership status in democratic groups, as it depends on the listeners participating in the communication whowill have to choose their political leader. In this context, emotional states and persuasive strategies used by theleader to convey beliefs and achieve goals have a high psychological activation. The wide vocal range used inthis context of communication seems to be used by the leader as an expression of social attractiveness anddominance [1]. Leaders may use greater F0 range to also reach a diverse audience. Lower F0 is used to conveydominance and attractiveness (as also shown by [4] and [5], to both genders, e.g. [4], and in different species,e.g. [2]. Higher F0 is used to convey competence, reassurance, calmness, benevolence [1], and submission [2].Wide range and high mean intensity are related to high activation of positive emotions [3]. The communicationcontext of a formal conference (CON) could also be described as risky for leadership. Leaders have to persuadean audience composed of peers and try to sound more dominant. One important difference from the MONcommunication context is the average F0. During CON, leaders use a lower mean F0. This is because of thesocial status and gender of the audience: the audience members are mostly leaders from other social groups orsub-groups, and they are also mostly males. As stated above, leaders who wish to convey traits of dominancemust also modulate their F0 according to the listener [6], and more generally according to the social status of theaudience listeners [1]. Therefore, the speaker may try to convey more dominance in this communication contextby lowering his F0. The persuasive strategies used during an informal interview (INT) are different from thoseused in the other two communication contexts. The politicians do not strain their voice for persuasive purposesor arouse emotional states in listeners.[1] Signorello, R. (2014). La Voix Charismatique: Aspects Psychologiques et Caractéristiques Acoustiques. Ph.D. Thesis in PhoneticScience and Social Psychology, Université de Grenoble, France and Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Italy.[2] Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. Sound symbolism, pages 325–347. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.[3] Laukka, P., Juslin, P. N., and Bresin, R. (2005). A dimensional approach to vocal expression of emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 19(5):633–653.[4] Collins, S. A. (2000). Men’s voices and women’s choices. Animal Behaviour, 60(6): 773–780.[5] Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Law Smith, M. J., Moore, F. R., DeBruine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., Hillier, S. G., and Perrett, D. I. (2006).Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and behavior, 49(2): 215–22.[6] Puts, D. A., Hodges, C. R., Càrdenas, R. A., and Gaulin, S. J. C. (2007). Men’s voices as dominance signals: vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(5): 340–344.