Relationships between vocal characteristics and body size and shape in human males: An evolutionary explanation for a deep male voice

Evans, Sarah; Neave, Nick; Wakelin, Delia

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.09.003

Cited by 187 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I included a measure of voice pitch as a proxy for men's physical attractiveness because it is strongly correlated to testosterone and other physical traits, such as shoulder circumference, chest circumference and shoulder-hip ratio (Evans et al 2006;Evans et al 2008). A study linking voice pitch to RS was done by Coren Apicella et al among Hadza foragers, where males with lower voice pitch were found to have fathered more children and therefore had more surviving children.…”

Section: Relationship Between Meq Score and Number Of Sexual Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circadian Preference and Sexual Selection: A Novel Evolutionary Approach

Piffer

2010

Nat Prec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human sleep patterns differ across age groups and between males and females, and their association with age and gender suggest that they might have been the target of sexual selection during human evolutionary history. In this study, I will test the hypothesis that a phase-delayed circadian phase is a sexually selected trait in humans. A short version of the Horne and Ostberg questionnaire and a questionnaire on sexual behaviour were administered to 134 males. A significant negative relationship was found between the MEQ score and the number of sexual partners among males, with evening types reporting more sexual partners than morning types. Findings support the hypothesis that evening preference in males is a sexually selected trait

show abstract

Section: Relationship Between Meq Score and Number Of Sexual Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circadian Preference and Sexual Selection: A Novel Evolutionary Approach

Piffer

2010

Nat Prec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Davies & Halliday, 1978;Evans, Neave, & Wakelin, 2006). In response to these equivocal findings, Fitch (1997) presented results from research with rhesus macaques, demonstrating that formant dispersion may be a better indicator of body size than fundamental frequency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sound symbolism refers to an association between phonemes and stimuli containing particular perceptual and/or semantic elements (e.g., objects of a certain size or shape). Some of the best-known examples include the mil/mal effect (Sapir, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225-239, 1929) and the maluma/takete effect (Köhler, 1929). Interest in this topic has been on the rise within psychology, and studies have demonstrated that sound symbolic effects are relevant for many facets of cognition, including language, action, memory, and categorization. Sound symbolism also provides a mechanism by which words' forms can have nonarbitrary, iconic relationships with their meanings. Although various proposals have been put forth for how phonetic features (both acoustic and articulatory) come to be associated with stimuli, there is as yet no generally agreed-upon explanation. We review five proposals: statistical co-occurrence between phonetic features and associated stimuli in the environment, a shared property among phonetic features and stimuli; neural factors; species-general, evolved associations; and patterns extracted from language. We identify a number of outstanding questions that need to be addressed on this topic and suggest next steps for the field.

show abstract

“…Laver and Trudgill (1979) implied a negative correlation between SFF and the height or weight due to their observation that tall, well-built men tend to have a low SFF. A study by Evans et al (2006) supported this assertion, at least in men with increased upper body musculature, a wide chest circumference and high shoulder to hip ratio. However, several studies contradict this observation (Lass & Brown, 1978;Graddol & Swann, 1983;Kunzel, 1989;Collins, 2000;Hamdan, et al, 2012).…”

Section: Speaking Fundamental Frequencymentioning

confidence: 88%

“…It is mainly determined by their tension and length (Hirano, 1974;Evans et al, 2006;Hamdan et al, 2012) and is measured in Hertz (Hz). Speaking fundamental frequency (SFF) is "the average fundamental frequency in connected speech" (Boone et al, 2010: p. 150).…”

Section: Speaking Fundamental Frequencymentioning

confidence: 99%