It’s the holiday season. And, we are surrounded by myths (and truths) about our heroes- Matisyahu, Jesus, Pope Francis, and every politician (they all seem to be running for President or re-election- even in December). Which means we should be aware of charisma. It’s not a new interest- I’ve written about this a few times (here’s but one).
I explained then that charisma can be developed. Our eloquence can be enhanced with practice, we can learn how to better respond to others- but that also means it can be faked. (Oh, come on, you know when you leave a rally – after being mesmerized by the oratory- and you recognize that it was just theater, and no true intentions were shared.) But, there are a plethora of researchers (Duke, Stanford, and UCLA among the institutions where such research is ongoing) that are examining the character of one’s voice- timbre, frequency, and pitch- to see how that affects how we perceive speakers.
Dr. William Mayew (and M. Venkatachalam) of Duke examined almost 800 public company CEO’s and determined that those with lower pitched voices received higher compensation (perhaps because they also tended to manage larger firms) and had longer tenures than their higher-pitch voice compatriots. That’s also true for polticians- those with lower pitched voices were more successful.
It also brings to mind another article I wrote that demonstrated we can tell when CEO’s and CFO’s are misreporting results to the financial markets. That was based upon the research of Drs. Larker and Zakolyukina of Stanford.
Drs. R. Signorello, Z. Zhang, B. Gerratt, and Jody Kreiman presented their newest results (Paper 2295) to the Acoustical Society of America this past October, but Kreiman and Signorello have been working as mentor and mentee (ok, professor and post-doc) for some time. They’ve examined (only male) politicians and business leaders (in several countries) to discern the vocal qualities that “turn on” their audiences- regardless of the words or meanings they employ. (A scrambler was used to eliminate the words’ meanings- only the frequency, intensity, cadence, and other characteristics were the criteria of the study.) 133 (26 were male) subjects then rated the speaker using 67 adjectives (both negative and positive); 48 folks who spoke no Italian rated the Italian speakers; 48 non-French speakers were used for the French orators
As a general rule, those with high pitched voices were viewed as submissive, while the lower pitched voice was identified as “big” and dominant. (In one experiment, the researchers dialed the pitch of a speaker up and down- which greatly changed the subjects’ perceptions of the speaker.)
Moreover, the politicians manifested a wide range of frequency variation. And, when they spoke to other politicians (their ‘peers’), they used an entirely different “voice”. And, they manifested a smaller range of frequency modulation and “voice stretching”.
The researchers note that some folks are born with the “charismatic” voice quality- but also note it can taught and learned. After all, singers and actors train their voices- why not others— especially those who aspire to become leaders.
The researchers hope to examine female speakers next, because their larynx and vocal folds are very different from those of the male gender. (Dr. Mayew of Duke has discerned that when women tried to project lower voice registers, they were perceived as less competent and less educated. Just the opposite of the male tendencies.)
There may also be some surgical approaches to changes in vocal quality. (That’s why Dr. Kreiman is involved in this research; Kreiman is a neck and head surgeon.)
You know some politicians will be lining up for that “cosmetic surgery” once it is available.
