Fundamental frequency during couple conflict: An analysis of physiological, behavioral, and sex-linked information encoded in vocal expression.

Abstract

The human voice is one of the sounds most frequently experienced by human beings. During couple conflict, higher fundamental frequency (f0), a physical property of human speech, has been linked to an increased risk of divorce, less beneficial response to couple therapy, and higher levels of dysfunctional communication behavior. F0 is generally considered to be a measure of emotional arousal, but it is not currently clear whether this interpretation is appropriate for understanding spouses' f0 during couple interaction. The goal of the current article is to clarify what forms of information are encoded in f0 during couple conflict by examining the relations between f0 range, physiological variables, and communication behavior during the conflict discussions of 67 German couples. In line with evolutionary models of speech production, associations emerged in the expected directions between f0 and: (a) physiological variables (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol); (b) self-reported communication behavior; and (c) observationally coded communication behavior. Additionally, simultaneous examination of physiological variables and observationally coded communication behaviors revealed that associations between both sets of variables and f0 range were largely independent of one another. Furthermore, women's range of f0 was significantly greater than men's range of f0. With regard to social signaling theories, f0 range can be understood as a nonverbal transmission of distress. Implications for future research on and use of f0 are discussed.

The association of therapist empathy and synchrony in vocally encoded arousal.

“…Mean f 0 is highly correlated with perceived pitch (up to r = .9) and is widely interpreted as a measure of vocally encoded emotional arousal (Juslin & Scherer, 2005; Kappas et al, 1991; Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernández-Dols, 2003). Vocally encoded emotional arousal refers to the degree of emotional activation conveyed by the voice (e.g., high = excited, angry, or nervous; low = bored, calm, or content), and higher levels of f 0 have been linked to higher levels of physiological (e.g., higher heart rate, higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and greater cortisol output; Scherer, 1989; Weusthoff, Baucom, & Hahlweg, 2013) and self-reported emotional arousal (e.g., Baucom et al, 2012). A series of studies indicate that f 0 converges as dyads converse (see Gregory, 1990; Gregory, Webster, & Huang, 1990).…”

Behaviorally-based couple therapies reduce emotional arousal during couple conflict

“…Computing f 0 is an ideal method for measuring emotional arousal because it is related to spouse’s physiological and subjective experiences of emotional arousal (e.g., Weusthoff et al, 2013), conveys information about one spouse’s internal emotional state, is related to maladaptive communication behaviors (e.g., B. Baucom et al, 2011), is related to couple therapy outcomes (e.g., B.…”

Disorder-specific patterns of emotion coregulation in couples: Comparing obsessive compulsive disorder and anorexia nervosa.

“…From a methodological perspective, this study adds to a growing literature on vocally encoded emotional arousal in couples, although prior studies were not focused on couples in which one partner has a psychological disorder (Baucom, Dickenson, et al, 2015; Baucom, Weusthoff, et al, 2012; Fischer, Baucom, et al, 2015; Weusthoff et al, 2013). However, these studies collectively suggest that vocally encoded arousal plays an important role for our understanding of couple interactions in a variety of contexts.…”

“…Detailed discussions of vocal measures of arousal, including fundamental frequency (f 0 ), and its empirical status (Bachorowski & Owren, 1995; Juslin & Scherer, 2005) as well as the utility of f 0 in couples research (Weusthoff, Baucom, & Hahlweg, 2013) are available elsewhere. Broadly, several studies demonstrated that overall levels of f 0 (Baucom et al, 2011; Baucom, Weusthoff, Atkins, & Hahlweg, 2012; Fischer, Baucom, et al, 2015) as well as within-conversation changes (Baucom, Dickenson, et al, 2015; Baucom, Sheng, et al, 2015) are associated with cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship outcomes.…”