Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2020
Beauty and Attractiveness in the Human Voice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Petty Brian E, Gillespie Amanda I, Shelly Sandeep, Klein Adam M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the difference between vocal beauty and vocal attractiveness by determining whether perceptual ratings of vocal beauty and vocal attractiveness could be dissociated in a cohort of normal raters without a diagnosed sexual desire disorder.
METHODS: Twenty five gay male participants were presented with randomly-chosen samples from the Geneva Voices and Faces Database, and were asked to rate each sample in terms of beauty, attractiveness for a relationship of short duration, and attractiveness for a relationship of long duration. Responses were recorded on a visual analog scale (0-100) using a touch-screen interface. The number of stimulus repetitions and the participant response times were also recorded. Statistical analyses were done using two-way Analysis of Variance tests and independent student's t tests. P values were considered statistically significant at the P < 0.05 level.
RESULTS: Participants rated male voices significantly higher in terms of beauty, attractiveness for a relationship of long duration, and attractiveness for a relationship of short duration (P < 0.001). Participants rated female voices significantly higher for beauty than for attractiveness for relationship of long or short duration (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in response time between male and female voices when rating vocal beauty (P = 0.5608). Response time was significantly longer for male voices than for female voices when assessing attractiveness for a relationship of short duration (P < 0.002) but not for long duration (P < 0.3496). Attractive voices (male and female) were repeated more often, and male voices were repeated more often than female voices for both long-term and short-term attractiveness. There was no difference in stimulus replay behavior as a function of the beauty ratings.
CONCLUSION: In a cohort of gay male raters without a diagnosed sexual desire disorder, vocal beauty and vocal attractiveness ratings of male and female voices are two related but distinct perceptual constructs that can, under certain circumstances, be dissociated. In general, gay men rated male voices equivalently for beauty, short-term, and long-term attractiveness, while the same ratings for female voices showed a significant difference between ratings of beauty and ratings of short-term and long-term attractiveness.
METHODS: Twenty five gay male participants were presented with randomly-chosen samples from the Geneva Voices and Faces Database, and were asked to rate each sample in terms of beauty, attractiveness for a relationship of short duration, and attractiveness for a relationship of long duration. Responses were recorded on a visual analog scale (0-100) using a touch-screen interface. The number of stimulus repetitions and the participant response times were also recorded. Statistical analyses were done using two-way Analysis of Variance tests and independent student's t tests. P values were considered statistically significant at the P < 0.05 level.
RESULTS: Participants rated male voices significantly higher in terms of beauty, attractiveness for a relationship of long duration, and attractiveness for a relationship of short duration (P < 0.001). Participants rated female voices significantly higher for beauty than for attractiveness for relationship of long or short duration (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in response time between male and female voices when rating vocal beauty (P = 0.5608). Response time was significantly longer for male voices than for female voices when assessing attractiveness for a relationship of short duration (P < 0.002) but not for long duration (P < 0.3496). Attractive voices (male and female) were repeated more often, and male voices were repeated more often than female voices for both long-term and short-term attractiveness. There was no difference in stimulus replay behavior as a function of the beauty ratings.
CONCLUSION: In a cohort of gay male raters without a diagnosed sexual desire disorder, vocal beauty and vocal attractiveness ratings of male and female voices are two related but distinct perceptual constructs that can, under certain circumstances, be dissociated. In general, gay men rated male voices equivalently for beauty, short-term, and long-term attractiveness, while the same ratings for female voices showed a significant difference between ratings of beauty and ratings of short-term and long-term attractiveness.