Effects of Four Voice Qualities and Formant Dispersion on Perception of a Female Voice

Open access


Stimuli produced by a female speaker with four different voice qualities - modal, girlish, breathy and creaky - were manipulated to have more or less formant dispersion and were rated on four scales (dominance, attractiveness, sexiness and youthfulness) by men and women. Stimuli with less formant dispersion were rated more dominant and those with more dispersed formants were rated as less dominant. Breathy voice and girlish voice were rated more attractive and sexy. Stimuli with a creaky voice were rated less attractive and sexy, as were stimuli with less formant dispersion. Girlish voices and those with greater formant dispersion were rated as more youthful; creaky voices and those with less formant dispersion were rated as less youthful. There were also gender differences in ratings of attractiveness and youthfulness. Our results suggest that women’s voice qualities can affect perceptions of their attractiveness, sexiness and youthfulness. We discuss the implications of these findings in the context of social signaling.

Abdelli-Beruh, N. B., Wolk, L., & Slavin, D. (2014). Prevalence of vocal fry in young adult male American English speakers. Journal of Voice, 28, 185-190. doi:

Anolli, L. & Cicero, R. (2002). Analysis of the vocal profiles of male seduction: From exhibition to self-disclosure. Journal of General Psychology, 129, 149-169. doi:

Apicella, C. L., Feinberg, D. R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biology Letters, 3, 682-684. doi:

Batstone, S. & Tuomi, S. K. (1981). Perceptual characteristics of female voices. Language and Speech, 24, 111-123. doi:

Berry, D. S. (1992). Vocal types and stereotypes: Joint effects of vocal attractiveness and vocal maturity on person perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 41-54. doi:

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3. 03. 2011.

Borkowska, B. & Pawlowski, B. (2011). Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Animal Behaviour, 82, 55-59. doi:

Bruckert, L., Liénard, J., Lacroix, A., Kreutzer, M., & Leboucher, G. (2006). Women use voice parameters to assess men's characteristics. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 273, 83-89. doi:

Charlton, B. D., Whisson, D. A., & Reby, D. (2013). Free-ranging male koalas use size-related variation in formant frequencies to assess rival males. PLOS ONE, 8, e70279. doi:

Collins, S., & Missing, C. (2003). Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women. Animal Behaviour, 65, 997-1004. doi:

Collins, S. A. (2000). Men's voices and women's choices. Animal Behaviour, 60, 773-780. doi:

Crystal, D., & Quirk, R. (1964). Systems of prosodic and paralinguistic features in English. The Hague: Mouton.

Crystal, D. (1975). The English tone of voice. London: Edward Arnold.

Daniel, H. J. III, & McCabe, R. B. (1992). Gender differences in the perception of vocal sexiness. In J. v. d. Dennen (Ed.), The nature of the sexes: the sociobiology of sex differences and the 'battle of the sexes' (pp. 55-62). Groningen: Origin Press. doi:

Esling, J. (1978). The identification of features of voice quality in social groups. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 8, 18-23. doi:

Esposito, C. M., & Khan, S. (2012). Contrastive breathiness across consonants and vowels: A comparative study of Gujarati and White Hmong. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(2), 123-143. doi:

Farley, S. D., Hughes, S. M., & LaFayette, J. N. (2013). People will know we are in love: Evidence of differences between vocal samples directed toward lovers and friends. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37, 123-138. doi:

Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). The role of femininity and averageness of voice pitch in aesthetic judgments of women's voices. Perception, 37, 615-623. doi:

Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Law Smith, M. J., Moore, F. R., DeBruine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., Hillier, S. G., & Perretta, D. I. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 215-222. doi:

Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Burt, D.M., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Manipulations of fundamental and formant frequencies influence the attractiveness of human male voices. Animal Behaviour, 69, 561-568. doi:

Fraccaro, P. J., Jones, B. C., Vukovic, J., Smith, F. G., Watkins, C. D., Feinberg, D. R., Little, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Experimental evidence that women speak in a higher voice pitch to men they find attractive. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 57-67. doi:

Fraccaro, P. J., O'Connor, J. J. M., Re, D. E., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013). Faking it: Deliberately altered voice pitch and vocal attractiveness. Animal Behaviour, 85, 127-136. doi:

Gordon, M., & Ladefoged, P. (2001). Phonation types: a cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 383-406. doi:

Hageman, W. (2013, July 24) Stop! You’re hurting my ears! Retrieved from: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sc-fam-0723-voice-control-20130723-story.html

Henton, C.G., & Blandon, R.A.W. (1985) Breathiness in normal female speech: Inefficiency versus desirability. Language & Communication, 5, 221-227. doi:

Henton, C.G., & Blandon, R.A.W. (1988) Creak as a sociophonetic marker. In L. Hyman & C. Li (Eds.) Language, speech and mind: studies in honour of Victoria A. Fromkin (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hillenbrand, J. M., & Clark, M. J. (2009). The role of f 0 and formant frequencies in distinguishing the voices of men and women. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1150-1166. doi:

Hughes, S. M., Dispenza, F., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2004). Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 295-304. doi:

Hughes, S. M., Farley, S. D., & Rhodes, B. C. (2010). Vocal and physiological changes in response to the physical attractiveness of conversational partners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 155-167. doi:

Hughes, S. M., Mogilski, J. K., & Harrison, M. A. (2014). The perception and parameters of intentional voice manipulation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 107-127. doi:

Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Vukovic, J. (2010). A domain-specific opposite-sex bias in human preferences for manipulated voice pitch. Animal Behavior, 79, 57-62. doi:

Karpf, A. (2006). The human voice: How this extraordinary instrument reveals essential clues about who we are. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D. (2011). Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. doi:

Ladefoged, P., & Harshman, R. (1979). Formant frequencies and movements of the tongue. In Björn Lindblom and Sven Öhman, (Eds.) Frontiers of Speech Communication Research (25-34). NewYork, NY: Academic Press.

Laver, John. (1980). The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.

Mendoza-Denton (2007). Homegirls remembered: Memorializing practices linking language and materiality among California latina/o gang-involved youth. In P. Hodkinson and P. Deicke, Youth Cultures: Scenes, Subcultures, and Tribes (123-147), New York, NY: Routledge. doi:

O'Connor, J. J., Fraccaro, P. J., Pisanski, K., Tigue, C. C., O'Donnell, T. J., & Feinberg, D. R. (2014). Social dialect and men's voice pitch influence women's mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(5), 368-375. doi:

Pisanski, K., Cartei, V., McGettigan, C., Raine, J., & Reby, D. (2016). Voice modulation: A window into the origins of human vocal control? Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(4), 304-318. doi:

Pisanski, K., Mora, E. C., Pisanski, A., Reby, D., Sorokowski, P., Frackowiak, T., & Feinberg, D. R. (2016). Volitional exaggeration of body size through fundamental and formant frequency modulation in humans. Scientific reports, 6, 34389. doi:

Pisanski, K., & Rendall, D. (2011). The prioritization of voice fundamental frequency or formants in listeners’ assessments of speaker size, masculinity, and attractiveness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(4), 2201-2212. doi:

Pittam, J. (1987). Listeners' evaluations of voice quality in Australian English speakers. Language and Speech, 30, 99-113. doi:

Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women's preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388- 397. doi:

Puts, D. A., Barndt, J. L., Welling, L. L. M., Dawood, K., & Burriss, R. P. (2011). Intrasexual competition among women: Vocal femininity affects perceptions of attractiveness and flirtatiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 111-115. doi:

Puts, D.A., Doll, L.M., & Hill, A.K. (2014) Sexual selection on human voices. In V.A. Weekes-Shackelford and T.K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior (pp. 69-86). New York, NY: Springer. doi:

Puts, D. A., Hodges, C. R., Cárdenas, R. A., & 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, 340-344. doi:

Quenqua, D. (2012, February 27). They’re, like, way ahead of the linguistic currrrve. The New York Times, 28.

Tuomi, S. & Fisher, J. (1979). Characteristics of simulated sexy voice. Folia Phonist, 31, 242-249. doi:

Van Borsel, J., Janssens, J., & De Bodt, M. (2009). Breathiness as a feminine voice characteristic: A perceptual approach. Journal of Voice, 23, 291-294. doi:

Wolk, L., Abdelli-Beruh, N. B., & Slavin, D. (2012). Habitual use of vocal fry in young adult female speakers. Journal of Voice, 26, e111-e116. doi:

Yuasa, I. P. (2010). Creaky voice: A new feminine voice quality for young urban-oriented upwardly mobile American women? American Speech, 85, 315- 337. doi:

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.359


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 20 20 20
PDF Downloads 10 10 10