Download The organizational voice: The importance of voice pitch and speech

The organizational voice: The importance of voice pitch and speech rate in organizational
crisis communication
Aurélie De Waele and An-Sofie Claeys
KU Leuven
Verolien Cauberghe
Ghent University
Author note:
Aurélie De Waele is a PhD student at the Institute for Media Studies at KU Leuven (Belgium).
An-Sofie Claeys is assistant professor in Corporate Communication at the Institute for Media
Studies at KU Leuven (Belgium). Verolien Cauberghe is associate professor in Communication
Management at Ghent University (Belgium).
Acknowledgements:
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Innovation by Science and
Technology in Flanders (IWT).
Contact:
Aurélie
De
Waele
([email protected])
or
An-Sofie
Claeys
([email protected]), KU Leuven, Institute for Media Studies, Parkstraat 45,
3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Verolien Cauberghe ([email protected]), Ghent University, Department of
Communication Sciences, Korte Meer 7-9-11, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
Abstract
Prior research has mainly focused on verbal aspects of crisis communication (i.e., crisis
response strategies) (e.g., Coombs, 2007). However, crisis communication is frequently spread
through audiovisual messages, which also contain nonverbal cues (Coombs & Holladay, 2009).
Such vocal (e.g., voice pitch) and visual (e.g., facial expression) cues affect listeners’
perceptions of a speaker (e.g., Tigue et al., 2012). Yet only a few studies have investigated
visual cues in crisis communication (e.g., Arpan, 2002; Gorn, Jiang, & Venkataramani, 2008),
while research on vocal cues is almost nonexistent (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014). Therefore,
this study examines the impact of two vocal cues, namely pitch and speech rate, in combination
with the crisis communication strategy on post-crisis reputation, by means of a 2 (voice pitch:
low - high) × 2 (speech rate: slow - fast) × 2 (crisis response strategy: deny - rebuild) betweensubjects experimental design, involving a fictitious preventable crisis. Results show that voice
pitch and speech rate affect post-crisis reputation, but only in case of a matched (i.e., rebuild)
crisis response strategy. Moreover, the interaction between verbal and vocal cues is mediated
by attractiveness of the voice and by empathy towards the spokesperson.
Public relations research is a rapidly expanding field. One of the most researched themes in
public relations is crisis communication (Avery, Lariscy, Kim, & Hocke, 2010). Crisis
communication research and theory building have mainly focused on verbal aspects of crisis
communication, and more specifically on the effects of crisis response strategies (e.g.,
apologizing, denial) (e.g., Coombs, 2007) on post-crisis reputation. However, corporate
communication becomes increasingly audiovisual, mainly because of the frequent use of social
media, which includes video messages (e.g., YouTube). Those audiovisual messages convey
not only verbal, but nonverbal cues as well (Coombs & Holladay, 2009). Research in aligned
fields, such as political communication and marketing communication, shows that such
nonverbal cues can influence an audience’s perception of a communicator (e.g., Tigue, Borak,
O’Connor, Schandl, & Feinberg, 2012; Chattopadhyay, Dahl, Ritchie, & Shahin, 2003).
Moreover, several studies have indicated that those nonverbal cues can interact with the content
of the message (e.g., Chattopadhyay et al., 2003). Despite the potential importance of nonverbal
communication for organizational spokespersons, however, there has been limited research on
the effects of nonverbal cues in crisis communication.
Some studies have examined the effects of visual cues in crisis communication (e.g., Claeys
& Cauberghe, 2014a; Hong & Len-Riós, 2015). However, the research on vocal cues in crisis
communication is limited to the effect of only one vocal cue (voice pitch) (Claeys &
Cauberghe, 2014a). Moreover, we only know how voice pitch affects perceptions of a
spokesperson (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014a ) but not how this spills over on perceptions of the
organization itself. Therefore, this study explores how two vocal cues, namely pitch and speech
rate, affect the evaluation of an organization in crisis and how. Moreover, because vocal and
verbal cues interact in aligned fields, such as marketing communication (e.g., Chattopadhyay
et al., 2003), this study examines the interplay between verbal (i.e., crisis response strategy)
and vocal cues (i.e., voice pitch and speech rate) in times of organizational crisis. The findings
of this study will expand the field of crisis communication research by exploring the impact of
vocal cues on post-crisis reputation and their interaction with the more researched area of crisis
response strategies. On the one hand, this is relevant for communication research, because the
findings will show if the impact of vocal cues should be taken into account in researching crisis
communication outcome. On the other hand, this is relevant for crisis communication practice,
because the findings will indicate how practitioners should take into account the speech
characteristics of a spokesperson in times of crisis.
Verbal aspects of crisis communication
Crisis communication research has mainly focused on the content of crisis communication.
Particularly, most studies have examined the impact of crisis response strategies, such as
apologizing or denying responsibility, on organizational reputation (Avery et al., 2010). The
most important theory regarding crisis response strategies is Situational Crisis Communication
Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 2007). SCCT explores how the characteristics of the crisis situation
(e.g., crisis responsibility, crisis severity) affect the impact of crisis response strategies, and it
provides guidelines about which crisis response strategy is best suited under which conditions.
According to SCCT, the reputation threat of a crisis is mainly determined by crisis
responsibility attributions by the public (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). Therefore, SCCT
distinguishes three crisis type clusters, based on attributions of responsibility, namely victim,
accidental and preventable crises, increasing in the amount of crisis responsibility attributions
and reputational damage. According to SCCT, an organization in crisis should accept as much
responsibility for the events as the public attributes (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). Therefore,
there are also three clusters of crisis response strategies, differing in the extent to which the
organization takes responsibility for the crisis. Deny strategies disprove the organization’s
responsibility for the event. Diminish strategies accept involvement in the crisis, but try to
minimize responsibility for it. Rebuild strategies accept responsibility for the crisis and attend
to victim concerns (Coombs, 2006). Consequently, SCCT matches deny strategies to victim
crises, diminish strategies to accidental crises, and rebuild strategies to preventable crises
(Coombs, 2007). Some experimental studies confirm the assumption that a crisis response that
is matched to the amount of responsibility attributions leads to less reputation damage (e.g.,
Huang, 2006). In particular, several studies have indicated that organizations confronted with
a preventable crisis should take their responsibility for the events by means of an appropriate
rebuild strategy (Coombs, 1995; 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 1996; 2002). This leads to the
following hypothesis:
H1: A rebuild crisis response strategy leads to a better post-crisis reputation in the case of
a preventable crisis than a deny crisis response strategy.
In recent years, studies on the content of crisis communication are being complemented with
insights on other elements of the crisis message, such as timing and framing (Arpan & RoskosEwoldsen, 2005; Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012; Claeys, Cauberghe, & Leysen, 2013; van der
Meer & Verhoeven, 2014).
However, people frequently receive news about organizations via audiovisual media, such
as television and video messages on the Internet. Also, organizations increasingly use social
media for crisis communication (Schultz, Utz, & Göritz, 2011; Utz, Schultz, & Glocka, 2013),
which often includes video messages as well (e.g., YouTube). Crisis communication thus
becomes increasingly audiovisual. Such audiovisual crisis communication not only conveys
the content of a message, but also visual and vocal cues (i.e., nonverbal communication)
(Coombs & Holladay, 2009). Several authors have recognized the importance of nonverbal
communication in times of crisis, for example in order to express emotions (van der Meer &
Verhoeven, 2014). Yet, nonverbal communication is an aspect that remains relatively
unexplored in crisis communication research.
Nonverbal communication
Nonverbal communication has been studied extensively in the context of impression
formation (e.g., Tigue et al., 2012), because people’s opinion about another person is not only
based on what a person says (verbal cues), but also on visual and vocal cues (Sporer &
Schwandt, 2006). Some insights of research on visual cues in impression formation, have been
applied to crisis communication research, by investigating the impact of visual cues on the
evaluation of the crisis and the organization in crisis. The effects of a spokesperson’s ethnicity
(Arpan, 2002), race (Hong & Len-Riós, 2015), the degree to which the spokesperson has a
babyface (Gorn, Jiang, & Johar, 2008), and the use of powerful gestures (Claeys & Cauberghe,
2014a) on the evaluation of the organization in crisis have been investigated.
Besides research on visual nonverbal cues, there is an extensive amount of research on vocal
cues in impression formation as well. According to social psychological and interpersonal
communication research, vocal cues have a significant influence on the perception of a person
(e.g., Imhof, 2010). People link vocal cues to certain personality traits, regardless of whether
the speaker effectively possesses these characteristics (i.e., voice stereotypy) (Aronovitch,
1976). Two of the most important vocal cues in the context of impression formation are voice
pitch and speech rate (e.g., Apple, Streeter, & Krauss, 1979).
First, pitch is typically linked to perceptions of dominance. Several studies that have
manipulated pitch experimentally, show that a lower pitched voice leads to the perception of
more physical and social dominance, attractiveness and leadership of the speaker (e.g., Puts,
Gaulin, & Verdolini, 2006; Tigue et al., 2012), while a higher pitched voice scores low on
dominance ratings and comes across as nervous and emotionally instable (Apple et al., 1979;
Imhof, 2010). Second, voice pitch has also been connected to perceptions of credibility. A
voice with a lower pitch is perceived as more honest, trustworthy and credible (Apple et al.,
1979; Tigue et al., 2012), while a higher pitch is linked to deception (Apple et al., 1979;
DePaulo et al., 2003; Sporer & Schwandt, 2006). Third, voice pitch is associated with
perceptions of competence. A lower pitched voice leads to a better perception of a speaker in
terms of intelligence, expertise, and competence (Tigue et al., 2012). A fourth aspect that is
linked to vocal pitch, is perceived empathy of the speaker. A study investigating vocal cues in
doctor-patient communication, showed that a lower pitch is perceived as more caring and
sympathetic (McHenry, Parker, Baile, & Lenzi, 2012).
The findings of these studies concerning pitch in impression formation, have been applied
to several domains, such as political communication and advertising research. These studies
show that pitch is not only linked to personality judgments, but also impacts the attitudes and
behavior of the listener towards the speaker. For example, two studies investigated the effect
of a politician’s voice pitch on listeners’ voting behavior, by manipulating the politician’s pitch
experimentally. In both studies, participants chose to vote for the politician with the lower pitch
significantly more often (Klofstad, Anderson, & Peters, 2012; Tigue et al., 2012). A different
study, in the domain of advertising research, showed that radio advertisements with a
spokesperson with a low pitch led to better attitudes towards the spokesperson and a better
advertisement effectiveness than a spokesperson with a high pitch (Martín-Santana, MuelaMolina, Reinares-Lara, & Rodríguez-Guerra, 2015).
Besides vocal pitch, there is another vocal cue that has an important influence on the
perception of the speaker, namely speech rate (e.g., Ray, 1986). Several studies on personality
perception have linked a fast speech rate with the perception of a competent speaker (e.g.,
Brown, Strong, & Rencher, 1974; Ray, 1986; Street & Brady, 1982). Also, a fast speech rate
can function as a credibility cue, which enhances persuasiveness (Miller, Maruyama, Beaber,
& Valone, 1976). This has led researchers to investigate the effects of speech rate in sales and
advertising contexts. A study investigating the relationship between vocal cues and sales
performance in salespeople, showed that a fast speech rate is related to an increase in sales
performance (Peterson, Cannito, & Brown, 1995). In advertising research, several studies have
shown that a fast speech rate is more persuasive and leads to more positive consumers’ attitudes
(e.g., Skinner, Robinson, Robinson, Sterling, & Goodman, 1999).
However, the impact of vocal cues, such as pitch and speech rate, on listeners’ perceptions
and attitudes towards the speaker, is not only based on their link with certain personality traits.
Listeners’ judgments of a speaker are also based on the attractiveness of the speaker’s voice.
Literature indicates a “vocal attractiveness stereotype” (Zuckerman & Driver, 1989), which
means that vocal attractiveness elicits a halo effect (Surawski & Ossoff, 2006). Consequently,
attractive voices lead to more positive personality judgments (Surawski & Ossoff, 2006; Tigue
et al., 2012; Zuckerman & Driver, 1989). Thus, the effects of vocal cues on listeners’
perceptions and attitudes towards the speaker often occur as a function of vocal attractiveness
(Zuckerman & Driver, 1989).
Finally, besides their impact on impression formation, vocal cues also play a role in
conveying emotions (e.g., Banse & Scherer, 1996). On the one hand, they play a role in
expressing emotions. Several studies have listed which vocal cues are associated with which
emotions, and pitch and speech rate seem to be two important cues for expressing emotions,
such as anger, happiness, sadness or fear (e.g., Murray & Arnott, 1993). On the other hand,
vocal cues also play a role in the perception of emotions. Pitch and speech rate are important
cues that are used by a listener to deduce emotions from a speaker’s voice (e.g., Banse &
Scherer, 1996; Johnstone & Scherer, 2000). The findings that the voice both expresses
emotions and is used by listeners to infer a speaker’s emotions, has led researchers to explore
whether the expression of emotions in the voice has an effect on the emotional state of the
listener (e.g., Hawk, Fischer, Van Kleef, & Gerben, 2012). Research indicates that emotions in
the voice indeed affect the emotional state of the listener, in that sense that listeners have an
emotional reaction towards the observed emotions in the speaker’s voice (Hawk et al., 2012).
Thus, vocal cues, such as pitch and speech rate, also seem to play a role in affecting the
emotions of the listener towards the speaker.
Vocal cues in crisis communication
Although the effects of pitch and speech rate (e.g., competence, credibility) that have been
found in aligned fields, such as political communication and marketing communication (e.g.,
Tigue et al., 2012), are also relevant in crisis communication, research on the influence of vocal
cues in crisis communication is very limited. One study has investigated the effect of one vocal
cue on the perception of an organizational spokesperson in times of crisis, by manipulating the
voice pitch of the spokesperson (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014a). The results showed that a
spokesperson who speaks with a low pitch during a crisis is perceived as more competent than
a spokesperson with a high pitch. Moreover, the results of the experiment illustrated that the
effect of voice pitch on competence was mediated by perceptions of powerfulness. However,
the impact of vocal cues on the perception of the organization (i.e., post-crisis reputation) has
not been investigated before.
In addition, another important vocal cue, namely speech rate, has not yet been examined in
times of crisis. It is not clear if the effect of pitch and speech rate in crisis communication
would be the sum of the separate effects of those cues, or if an interaction between those cues
would occur. Some studies have suggested that a fast speech rate leads people to pay more
attention to other vocal cues, such as pitch (e.g., Chattopadhyay et al., 2003). Other studies
have indicated that there is a natural covariation between pitch and speech rate (e.g., Black,
1961), which could make speech with levels of pitch and speech rate that do not naturally
covary, sound odd. It is thus not clear if and how pitch and speech rate affect crisis
communication outcome. This leads to the following research question:
RQ1: How do the vocal cues pitch and speech rate of an organizational spokesperson affect
post-crisis reputation?
It is not only important to investigate the impact of the vocal cues pitch and speech rate in
crisis communication, but also to investigate how this possible impact could be explained. The
study of Claeys & Cauberghe (2014a) has shown that voice pitch affects the perception of a
spokesperson’s competence through perceptions of powerfulness. However, research in
aligned fields (e.g., political communication) has shown that the impact of vocal cues could
also be explained through vocal attractiveness (e.g., Tigue et al., 2012). Voices that are rated
as more attractive, lead to more positive judgments of a spokesperson (e.g., Surawski & Ossoff,
2006; Tigue et al., 2012; Zuckerman & Driver, 1989). This leads to the question if the possible
effects of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation in crisis communication, could be mediated by
the attractiveness of the organizational spokesperson’s voice.
RQ2: Is the impact of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation mediated by the attractiveness of
the spokesperson’s voice?
Furthermore, literature on crisis communication shows that emotions have an impact on
crisis communication outcome (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014b; van der Meer & Verhoeven,
2014). Those emotions are not only communicated by the content of the crisis response, but
particularly by a spokesperson’s voice (van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014). Research from
social psychology has shown that vocal cues, such as pitch and speech rate, indeed express
emotions (e.g., Murray & Arnott, 1993). Those emotions in the voice can affect the emotional
state of the listener by evoking an emotional reaction towards the speaker’s observed emotions
(Hawk et al., 2012). Because affective empathy towards a person arises from such an emotional
reaction towards the observation of another person’s emotions (Lawrence, Shaw, Baker,
Baron-Cohen, & David, 2004), it is possible that vocal cues can thus elicit empathy towards
the speaker. Therefore, the question rises whether the impact of pitch and speech rate in times
of crisis can be explained by empathy towards the spokesperson. This leads to the following
research question:
RQ3: Is the impact of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation mediated by empathy?
The interplay between verbal and vocal cues
In communication, verbal and nonverbal cues are mostly combined. Therefore, several
authors have suggested that verbal and nonverbal behavior should not be studied separately,
but needs an integrated approach (Jones & LeBaron, 2002). Consequently, the interaction
between verbal and nonverbal cues is an extensively studied topic in several areas of
communication research, and specifically in persuasive communication research (e.g., GelinasChebat & Chebat, 1992).
Such studies on the interaction between vocal cues and the content of a message in
persuasive communication have shown different results. One view on the interaction between
nonverbal (e.g., vocal) cues and verbal cues suggests that communication is more persuasive
if the verbal and nonverbal cues of a message are congruent (Johnson, McCarty, & Allen,
1976). However, other studies indicate that the interaction between vocal cues and content
depends on the involvement of the receiver of the message. They suggest that in the case of a
highly involved receiver, the receiver is persuaded by the content of the message, such as the
quality of the arguments. In the case of a low level of involvement, the receiver relies on
peripheral cues, (e.g., vocal cues), to form their opinion (e.g. Gelinas-Chebat & Chebat, 1992;
Reinhard & Sporer, 2010). However, other studies show that nonverbal cues themselves can
impact to which extent persuasion occurs through the content of the message or through other
nonverbal cues. For example, in advertising research, a fast speech rate undermines the extent
to which people process the ad and therefore decreases the effects of the content of the message,
while increasing the effects of peripheral cues, such as pitch (Chattopadhyay et al., 2003;
Megehee, Dobie, & Grant, 2003; Moore, Hausknecht, & Thamodaran, 1986). It is thus clear
that there is an interaction between vocal cues and the content of the message, but the nature
of this interaction is indistinct.
In crisis communication, the interaction between vocal cues and the content of the crisis
response has not been investigated before. Nevertheless, spokespersons send out both verbal
(e.g., crisis response strategy) and vocal cues (e.g., pitch and speech rate) together when
communicating in television or radio interviews or video messages. This leads to the question
whether the effects of a spokesperson’s vocal cues in times of crisis are influenced by the used
crisis response strategy (i.e., a matched (rebuild) strategy or a mismatched (deny) strategy):
RQ4: What is the interplay between an organizational spokesperson's verbal and vocal cues
on post-crisis reputation in times of crisis?
Method
Design and Stimuli
The hypothesis and research questions were examined by means of a 2 (voice pitch: low vs.
high) × 2 (speech rate: slow vs. fast) × 2 (crisis response strategy: match vs. mismatch)
between-subjects experimental design. Participants read a text, describing a fictitious
organizational crisis and then listened to an audio recording with a fictitious crisis response
that manipulated each of the three independent variables. As such, each participant randomly
received one of eight conditions.
The crisis situation that was described in the text, occurred at a fictitious company, in order
to prevent any confounding effects of an existing pre-crisis reputation (Laufer & Jung, 2010).
The text described a preventable crisis, which is a crisis type with high responsibility
attributions that leads to the highest level of reputation threat (Coombs, 2007). Moreover, the
crisis scenario was chosen to elicit moderate levels of crisis involvement, which is important
to investigate the effects of both central (i.e., crisis response strategy) and peripheral cues (i.e.,
vocal cues) of a message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). Because personal relevance of the crisis
increases involvement (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; Smith & Shaffer, 1995), the
scenario described a crisis concerning everyday products (which were highly relevant to the
participants), but was set in an area of the country that was distant and culturally different from
where the participants lived, which lowered personal relevance.
In addition, to increase the external validity of this study and as such the generalizability of
the findings, two different crisis scenarios were used. Each scenario was, however, similar with
regard to perceptions of organizational responsibility, crisis severity and crisis involvement. In
the first scenario, people got severely ill after eating yoghurt that was contaminated with
listeria. The cause of the contamination was poor hygiene at a dairy company. In the second
scenario, people got severely ill after using toothpaste that contained a toxic chemical. The
chemical ended up in the toothpaste as a result of deficient control mechanisms at a company
producing care products.
After reading the text, participants listened to an audio recording from a fictitious radio
interview given by the CEO of the organization in crisis. We recorded the voice of a male
person with a normal pitch (106 Hz) (Skuk & Schweinberger, 2014) and speech rate (4.32
syllables/second) (e.g., Chattopadhyay et al., 2003). The person read an adapted crisis response
for each of both crisis scenarios. Crisis response strategy was manipulated by recording two
versions of the crisis response for each scenario. One version contained a rebuild crisis response
strategy (i.e., the CEO stated that his company took full responsibility for the events), which
was matched to the crisis type (preventable crisis), according to SCCT (Coombs, 2007). The
other version contained a deny crisis response strategy (i.e., the CEO stated that his company
denied all responsibility for the events), which is considered a mismatched strategy in the case
of a preventable crisis. All original recordings were similar in length, content, average pitch
and speech rate. The only difference was the crisis response strategy used and the crisis
situation that was addressed, resulting in two recordings for each scenario.
In order to manipulate voice pitch and speech rate, the audio fragments were then edited by
means of the computer software Praat (cf. Boersma, 2001). This software allowed us to
manipulate pitch and speech rate separately, while keeping all other factors constant (e.g.,
intensity, intonation) (Imhof, 2010). Voice pitch was manipulated by raising and lowering the
baseline level with 20% (e.g., Apple et al., 1979). Speech rate was manipulated by increasing
and decreasing the baseline level with 15%, which was in this case the boundary value for still
sounding natural. This resulted in eight different audio conditions for each crisis scenario.
Participants and Procedure
A sample of 241 respondents that was representative of the Dutch-speaking Belgian
population in terms of age, gender and sociodemographic variables, participated in the study.
Participants were recruited via a market research bureau, which invited them to participate in
an online survey. 14 respondents who indicated having hearing problems were omitted from
the dataset. Hence, 227 participants were included in further analysis. Participants were divided
randomly across the crisis scenarios and experimental conditions by the survey website. They
first read the text describing the crisis scenario and then they listened to an audio fragment with
the crisis response of the CEO. Finally, they filled out the online questionnaire containing
manipulation checks, measures of the dependent variables and measures of sociodemographic
variables. The average age of the participants was 51 years (SD = 14.28; range = 20 - 79).
Approximately 46 % of them were male and 54 % were female.
Measures
The questionnaire first contained manipulation checks. Then, participants filled in questions
regarding the dependent and mediating variables.
Crisis response strategy. In order to check for the manipulation of crisis response strategy,
participants rated the reaction of the CEO on a one-item seven-point semantic differential scale
ranging from “denied all crisis responsibility” to “took full responsibility for the crisis”. This
scale is related to the definition of crisis response strategies from SCCT (Coombs, 2007), which
classifies crisis response strategies according to the amount of responsibility they take (Claeys
& Cauberghe, 2014b).
Pitch. The manipulation of pitch was checked by measuring the average pitch of the audio
fragments. Average pitch was measured with the software Praat (Analyse periodicity: to pitch
- Query: Get mean) (cf. Boersma, 2001).
Speech rate. The manipulation of speech rate was checked by measuring the average speech
rate of the audio fragments. Speech rate was measured by counting the syllables in the audio
fragment and dividing that number by the number of seconds of speech (e.g., Chattopadhyay
et al., 2003).
Organizational responsibility. In order to check if the preventable crisis scenario, which
should inflict high attributions of responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2002), was effectively
perceived as a preventable crisis, perceptions of organizational responsibility were measured.
A two-item seven-point Likert scale was used from Griffin, Babin, & Darden (1992),
measuring the organizational responsibility for a crisis (e.g., “How responsible was the
organization itself with respect to the crisis?”) (α = .90).
Involvement and severity. Crisis involvement and severity were measured to check for
differences between the two crisis scenarios. Involvement was measured by a three-item sevenpoint Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) (Kopalle &
Lehmann, 2001) (α = .91) (e.g. “These events are very important to me”). In order to measure
perceived crisis severity, participants rated the crisis events on a three-item 7-point semantic
differential scale from Arpan & Pompper (2003) (e.g., “not at all severe - extremely severe“)
(α = .95).
Organizational reputation. Organizational reputation was measured as a dependent variable
using items from the reputation quotient of Fombrun, Gardberg and Sever (2000). The
reputation quotient measures organizational reputation on an emotional and a rational
dimension. Because the experiment involved a fictitious crisis situation, some items from the
rational dimension were difficult to rate because of a lack of background information about the
organization (e.g., “This organization develops innovative products and services”). Therefore,
a short version of the reputation quotient was used, consisting of nine 7-point disagree-agree
Likert items (α = .95) (e.g., “I have a good feeling about this company”).
Vocal attractiveness. Attractiveness of the CEO’s voice was measured using a two-item 7point Likert scale from Surawski & Ossoff (2006), on which participants indicated to which
extent they found the voice “attractive” and “likeable” (α = .88).
Empathy. Empathy towards the CEO was measured using an eight-item 7-point Likert scale,
which assessed participants’ feelings towards the CEO (e.g., sympathy, concern, compassion)
(α = .94) (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003).
Results
Pretest
A pretest was conducted, in order to check for any confounding effects of unintended
differences between the crisis scenarios, and in order to measure if the crisis scenarios were
indeed perceived as preventable crises with moderate levels of involvement. An independent
t-test showed that there were no significant differences between the two scenarios in terms of
crisis responsibility (t(76) = -1.41, p = .16) and that both crises elicited high levels of perceived
crisis responsibility (i.e. preventable crisis) (Mscenario1 = 5.78, SD = 1.17; Mscenario2 = 6.13, SD =
1.02). In addition, the scenarios did not differ in terms of the involvement each crisis elicited
(t(76) = -.48, p = .63) and both events resulted in moderate levels of involvement (Mscenario1 =
4.00, SD = 1.47; Mscenario2 = 4.15, SD = 1.37). Finally, the scenarios did not differ in terms of
perceived crisis severity (t(76) = -.49, p = .62; Mscenario1 = 5.25, SD = 1.45 vs. Mscenario2 = 5.41,
SD = 1.32).
Manipulation checks
The manipulation of each independent variable was examined in the experimental study. An
independent samples t-test tested the manipulation of the first independent variable, namely
crisis response strategy. The test showed that in the case of a rebuild crisis response strategy
(M = 6.13, SD = 1.32), the organization was perceived as taking significantly more
responsibility for the crisis (t(225) = -19.18, p < .001) than in the case of a deny crisis response
strategy (M = 2.12, SD = 1.75). Thus, the manipulation of the verbal crisis communication was
successful.
The manipulation of the two vocal cues was checked by measuring the average pitch and
speech rate of the audio fragments. The average pitch of the fragments with increased pitch
was 125 Hz, which is approximately 20 % higher than the average baseline level of 106 Hz.
The average pitch of the fragments with decreased pitch was 84 Hz, which is approximately 20
% lower than the average baseline level of 106 Hz. The average speech rate of the fragments
with fastened speech rate was 5.09 syllables per second, which is approximately 15 % higher
than the average baseline level of 4.32 syllables per second. The average speech rate of the
fragments with slowed speech rate was 3.76 syllables per second, which is approximately 15
% lower than the average baseline level of 4.32 syllables per second. The manipulations of
pitch and speech rate were thus as intended.
Finally, an independent t-test confirmed that there were no significant differences between both
crisis scenarios in terms of crisis responsibility (t(225) = -.55, p = .59) and that both crises
elicited high levels of perceived crisis responsibility (i.e., preventable crisis) (Mscenario1 = 5.52,
SD = 1.50; Mscenario2 = 5.63, SD = 1.37). In addition, the scenarios did not differ in terms of the
involvement each crisis elicited (t(225) = -.04, p = .97) and both events resulted in moderate
levels of involvement (Mscenario1 = 4.11, SD = 1.63; Mscenario2 = 4.12, SD = 1.58). Finally, the
scenarios did not differ in terms of perceived crisis severity (t(225) = -.35, p = .73; Mscenario1 =
5.56, SD = 1.35 vs. Mscenario2 = 5.62, SD = 1.29).
Hypotheses and research questions
To test the hypothesis and research question 1 and 4, a three-way ANOVA was conducted.
First, there was no main effect of crisis response strategy on post-crisis reputation (F(1, 219) =
.00, p = .99). The use of a matched crisis response strategy (i.e., rebuild) did not result in a
significantly better post-crisis reputation (Mmatch = 3.11, SD = .12) than a mismatched crisis
response strategy (i.e., deny) (Mmismatch = 3.11, SD = .13). As such, hypothesis 1 was not
confirmed.
The three-way ANOVA also addressed research questions 1 and 4. Regarding the first
research question (How do the vocal cues pitch and speech rate of an organizational
spokesperson affect post-crisis reputation?), there was no main effect of pitch (F(1, 219) = .06,
p = .80), nor of speech rate (F(1, 219) = .23, p = .64).
The analysis did, however, show a significant three-way interaction between crisis response
strategy, pitch and speech rate on post-crisis reputation (F(1, 219) = 10.27, p < .01), which
offers insight into the fourth research question (What is the interplay between an organizational
spokesperson's verbal and vocal cues on post-crisis reputation in times of crisis?). Two followup two-way ANOVAs were conducted to look at this interaction in detail and examine how the
crisis response strategy affects the impact of each vocal cue. A first analysis showed that in the
case of a mismatched crisis response strategy (i.e., deny), there were no effects of the vocal
cues pitch (F(1, 99) = .18, p = .68) and speech rate (F(1, 99) = .05, p = .83) on post-crisis
reputation. Neither was there an interaction between pitch and speech rate (F(1, 99) = 2.47, p
= .12) (cf. Figure 1).
Mismatched crisis response strategy
(i.e., denial)
slow speech rate
fast speech rate
7
Reputation
6
5
4
3
2,94
3,38
3,23
2,89
2
1
low pitch
high pitch
Figure 1: Interaction between voice pitch and speech rate in the case of a mismatched crisis response strategy
Second, in the case of a matched crisis response strategy (i.e., rebuild), there were no main
effects of pitch (F(1, 120) = .01, p = .95; Mlow = 3.13, SD = 1.28 vs. Mhigh = 3.05, SD = 1.52)
and speech rate (F(1, 120) = .21, p = .65; Mfast = 3.15, SD = 1.42 vs. Mslow = 3.05, SD = 1.38)
either. However, there was a significant interaction between pitch and speech rate (F(1, 120)
= 9.04, p < .01). Two independent samples t-tests allowed looking at this interaction effect of
pitch and speech rate in the case of a matched strategy in detail. On the one hand, when
communicating with a lower pitched voice, a slow speech rate leads to a better reputation
than a fast speech rate (t(61) = 1.98, p = .05; Mslow = 3.41, SD = 1.30 vs. Mfast = 2.79, SD =
1.18). On the other hand, when communicating with a higher pitched voice, a fast speech rate
leads to a better reputation than a slow speech rate (t(59) = -2.25, p < .05; Mfast = 3.54, SD =
1.57 vs. Mslow = 2.69, SD = 1.39) (cf. Figure 2). These results answer research questions 1 and
4. Vocal cues do have an impact on post-crisis reputation, but only in the case of a matched
(i.e., rebuild) crisis response strategy.
Matched crisis response strategy
(i.e., rebuild)
slow speech rate
fast speech rate
7
Reputation
6
5
4
3
2
3,54
3,41
2,79
2,69
p = .05
p < .05
low pitch
high pitch
1
Figure 2: Interaction between voice pitch and speech rate in the case of a matched crisis response strategy
Finally, in order to address the second (Is the impact of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation
mediated by the attractiveness of the spokesperson’s voice?) and third research question (Is the
impact of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation mediated by empathy?), two mediation analyses
were conducted for the three-way interaction between pitch, speech rate and crisis response
strategy on post-crisis reputation. To examine these effects, we used PROCESS macro (Hayes,
2013), a modeling tool for SPSS.
First, we examined whether the three-way interaction between pitch, speech rate and crisis
response strategy was mediated by attractiveness of the voice. The analysis (5,000 bootstraps,
95% bias-corrected confidence intervals) revealed that the indirect effect of the three-way
interaction through attractiveness of the voice was significant (ab = .78, SE = .34). A 95%
bootstrap confidence interval for this indirect effect did not include zero (95% LLCI = .18,
95% ULCI = 1.52), indicating that the interaction effect of crisis response strategy, pitch and
speech rate on post-crisis reputation is mediated by attractiveness of the voice. This finding
implies that the interplay between verbal and vocal cues affects post-crisis reputation through
attractiveness of the CEO’s voice.
Second, we investigated whether the three-way interaction was mediated by the public’s
empathy towards the CEO. The analysis (5,000 bootstraps, 95% bias-corrected confidence
intervals) revealed that the indirect effect of the three-way interaction through empathy was
also significant (ab = .97, SE = .48). A 95% bootstrap confidence interval for this indirect effect
did not include zero (95% LLCI = .06, 95% ULCI = 1.88), indicating that the interaction effect
of crisis response strategy, pitch and speech rate on post-crisis reputation is also mediated by
empathy. Therefore, the interplay between verbal and vocal cues affects post-crisis reputation
through the public’s empathy towards the CEO.
Discussion
This study explored the impact of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation and examined their
interaction with verbal crisis communication. First, contrary to previous findings (e.g.,
Coombs & Holladay, 1996), the results of this study showed that a matched crisis response
strategy (i.e., rebuild in the case of a preventable crisis) did not lead to a significantly better
post-crisis reputation than a mismatched crisis response strategy (i.e., deny). Earlier research
has shown that using a matched crisis response strategy leads to better attitudes towards the
organization when consumers are highly involved with the crisis, but not in the case of low
crisis involvement (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014b). It is possible that participants of this study
were not involved enough for the positive effect of a matched strategy compared to a
mismatched strategy to occur. Another possibility is that the participants believed that the
mismatched, deny strategy was sincere, leading to lower perceptions of crisis responsibility
for the organization, and thus leading to a post-crisis reputation that was not significantly
worse than in the case of a matched, rebuild strategy. An independent t-test showed that a
deny strategy indeed led to a significantly lower attribution of responsibility than a rebuild
strategy (t(225) = -8.30, p < .01; Mdeny = 4.82, SD = 1.33 vs. Mrebuild = 6.21, SD = 1.19).
However, another possible explanation is the interplay that seemed to occur between these
crisis response strategies and the vocal cues offered by the CEO.
The results indeed showed that there was a significant three-way interaction between
pitch, speech rate and crisis response strategy on post-crisis reputation. Further analysis
indicated that vocal cues affect post-crisis reputation, depending on the crisis response
strategy. Only in the case of a crisis response strategy that matches the crisis type, do vocal
cues influence the public’s perception of an organization in crisis.
Two questions arise from these results. First, the question is why vocal cues have an
impact on post-crisis reputation only in the case of a matched crisis response strategy (i.e.,
rebuild). A number of studies have documented that surprising or unexpected information
leads to greater processing (e.g., Baker & Petty, 1994). For example, in advertisements,
unexpected information leads to higher involvement with the message than expected
information (Lee, 2000). Also, unexpected framing of a persuasive message leads to more
extensive processing of the message (Smith & Petty, 1996). It is possible that a deny strategy,
which is an unexpected choice in the case of a preventable crisis, increases involvement and
processing of the message, and thus leads to processing via the central route, which decreases
the impact of peripheral cues, such as pitch and speech rate. However, further research should
address this possible explanation.
The second question that arises from the three-way interaction found in this study, is
which levels of pitch and speech rate lead to a better post-crisis reputation than others. This
study seems to indicate that a high pitch is best combined with a fast speech rate and a low
pitch with a slow speech rate. A possible explanation for this result, is that the combinations
high-fast and low-slow sound more natural than a high-slow and a low-fast voice. Several
studies have shown that the perception of speech rate is influenced by pitch, in that sense that
a higher pitch leads to the perception of a faster speech rate (Boltz, 2011; Feldstein & Bond,
1981; Imhof, 2010). As an explanation for this effect, those studies indicate that there is a
natural covariation between pitch and speech rate in speech production: slow speech is for
example often produced with a lower pitch (Black, 1961). They suggest that by hearing this
natural covariation frequently, the perceptual covariation between pitch and speech rate
arised. It is thus possible that in crisis communication, the combinations of the vocal cues that
do not covary (high-slow and low-fast) sound unnatural, leading to a lower post-crisis
reputation. Further research should test this hypothesis.
Finally, this study showed that the three-way interaction between pitch, speech rate and
crisis response strategy was mediated by attractiveness of the voice on the one hand and by
empathy towards the CEO on the other hand. Earlier research in political communication has
already shown that vocal attractiveness affects the perception of political candidates
(Surawski & Ossoff, 2006). The results of this study seem to indicate that in the context of
crisis communication, vocal attractiveness has an impact on crisis outcome as well and that
pitch and speech rate can influence ratings of vocal attractiveness.
Also, empathy seems to play a role in the effect of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation.
Vocal cues have an effect on the empathy of the public towards the CEO, which impacts
post-crisis reputation. A possible explanation for this effect, is that the voice can convey
emotions (van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2014), which could elicit an emotional reaction in the
public that leads to empathy towards the CEO (Lawrence et al., 2004). In order to test this
suggestion, further research should measure the impact of a spokesperson’s voice in crisis
communication on perceived emotions by the public.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
This study has some limitations that further research should address. First, this study had
no control conditions with neutral levels of the vocal cues pitch and speech rate. Therefore,
the basic effects of separate manipulated cues could not be addressed, because one
manipulated level of a vocal cue was always combined with a manipulated level of the other
vocal cue. Further research should include control conditions for vocal cues, in order to check
what the effects of manipulated vocal cues are in comparison with neutral, average levels of
other vocal cues. Second, pitch and speech rate were investigated in this study because they
are two of the most researched cues in impression formation. However, there are other vocal
cues that can have an impact (e.g., pitch variability, loudness) (e.g., Apple et al., 1979).
Further research should take into account the impact of other vocal cues as well. Third, the
crisis scenarios in this study evoked moderate levels of involvement in participants. It is
possible that the relative impact of vocal cues and crisis response strategies is different in the
case of a low or a high involvement. Prior research indicates that under low involvement,
peripheral cues become more important, while under high involvement, the impact of the
content of the message increases (e.g., Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). This has already
been indicated in social psychological research on vocal cues, where vocal cues affected
listeners’ attitudes in the case of low involvement, but not in the case of high involvement
(e.g., Gelinas-Chebat & Chebat, 1992). Therefore, further research should test the impact of
vocal cues in crisis communication under different levels of crisis involvement. Fourth, this
study did not measure perceived emotionality of the speaker and perceived naturalness of the
voice. Further research could include these measures, in order to test if those are factors
explaining the effects of the combinations of vocal cues on post-crisis reputation.
Conclusions
The results of this study have shown that vocal cues interact with the content of crisis
communication and determine post-crisis reputation in times of crisis. Moreover, the impact
of the interaction is mediated by attractiveness of the voice and by empathy towards the
spokesperson. These results have some important implications for crisis communication
research and practice. For research, this study indicates that it is important not only to study
the content of crisis communication, but also vocal cues, because they interact with the crisis
response strategy and have an impact on post-crisis reputation as well. The interaction
between vocal cues and a matched crisis response strategy (i.e., rebuild) is an enlightening
finding that is extremely relevant, because literature on crisis communication has emphasized
the importance of a crisis response strategy that is matched to the crisis type (e.g., Coombs,
2007), but has neglected its interaction with vocal cues. Moreover, previous research on vocal
crisis communication was limited to the impact of one vocal cue, namely voice pitch. This
study expands the knowledge on the effect of voice pitch in crisis communication, by
investigating the interaction between pitch and speech rate. The results seem to suggest that,
when vocal cues are combined in crisis communication, it is important to combine them in a
natural way. Further research should therefore investigate the specific effects of separate
vocal cues in order to determine which cues have the most important impact, and which cues
should correlate naturally with others. This study thus provides an important contribution to
the field of crisis communication research and opens up interesting new opportunities for
further research.
For crisis communication practice, the results of this study show that it is important to
consider a spokesperson’s vocal characteristics in times of crisis, because they have a
significant impact on post-crisis reputation when using a rebuild strategy in preventable
crises. Organizations could collaborate with voice coaches in order to train a spokesperson’s
voice. In addition, the findings of this study can have very broad applications for corporate
communication practice in general. The results are not only relevant for external crisis
communication, but can also apply to other situations where spokespersons communicate
with stakeholders, such as in the case of internal crisis communication or communication in
the context of change management.
References
Apple, W., Streeter, L. A., & Krauss, R. M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on
personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 715-727.
Arpan, L.M. (2002). When in Rome? The effects of spokesperson ethnicity on audience
evaluation of crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication, 39(3), 314-339.
Arpan, L. M., & Pompper, D. (2003). Stormy weather: Testing “stealing thunder” as a crisis
communication strategy to improve communication flow between organizations and
journalists. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 291-308.
Arpan, L. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder: Analysis of the effects of
proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 425-433.
Avery, E. J., Lariscy, R. W., Kim, S., & Hocke, T. (2010). A quantitative review of crisis
communication research in public relations from 1991 to 2009. Public Relations
Review, 36(2), 190-192.
Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position
imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(1), 5-19.
Banse, R., & Scherer, K. R. (1996). Acoustic Profiles in Vocal Emotion Expression. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 614-636.
Black, J. W. (1961). Relationships among fundamental frequency, vocal sound pressure, and
rate of speaking. Language and Speech, 4(4), 196-199.
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International,
5(9/10), 341-345.
Boltz, M. G. (2011). Illusory tempo changes due to musical characteristics. Music
Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 367-386.
Brown, B. L., Strong, W. J., & Rencher, A. C. (1974). Fifty‐four voices from two: the effects
of simultaneous manipulations of rate, mean fundamental frequency, and variance of
fundamental frequency on ratings of personality from speech. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 55(2), 313-318.
Chattopadhyay, A., Dahl, D. W., Ritchie, R. J. B., & Shahin, K. N. (2002). Hearing voices:
The impact of announcer speech characteristics on consumer response to broadcast
advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 198-204.
Claeys, A.-S., & Cauberghe, V. (2012). Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two sides
of the same coin. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 83-88.
Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014a). Keeping control: The importance of nonverbal
expressions of power by organizational spokespersons in times of crisis. Journal of
Communication, 64(6), 1160-1180.
Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014b). What makes crisis response strategies work? The
impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67(2),
182-189.
Claeys, A.-S., Cauberghe, V., & Leysen, J. (2013). Implications of stealing thunder for the
impact of expressing emotions in organizational crisis communication. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 41(3), 293-308.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the
selection of the “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management Communication
Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing
reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(3-4), 241-260.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: the development
and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review,
10(3), 163-176.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An
experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4),
279–295.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets:
Initial tests of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Management Communication
Quarterly: An International Journal, 16(2), 165-186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication:
Effects of media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations
Review, 35(1), 1-6.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L. Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118.
Feldstein, S., & Bond, R. N. (1981). Perception of speech rate as a function of vocal intensity
and frequency. Language and Speech, 24(4), 387-394.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A. & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient sm: A multistakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal Of Brand Management, 7(4),
241-255.
Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Chebat, J. C. (1992). Effects of two voice characteristics on the
attitudes toward advertising messages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 447-459.
Gorn, G., Jiang, Y., & Johar, G. V. (2008). Babyfaces, trait inferences, and company
evaluations in a public relations crisis. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 36-49.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility
for product-related injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings, and promotional
policies. Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1), 870-878.
Hawk, S. T., Fischer, A. H., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Face the noise: Embodied responses
to nonverbal vocalizations of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102(4), 796-814.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process
analyses. New York: Guilford Press.
Hong, S., & Len-Riós, M. E. (2015). Does race matter? Implicit and explicit measures of the
effect of the PR spokesman's race on evaluations of spokesman source credibility and
perceptions of a PR crisis' severity. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(1), 63-80.
Huang, Y. H. (2006). Crisis situations, communication strategies, and media coverage - A
multicase study revisiting the communicative response model. Communication Research,
33(3), 180-205.
Imhof, M. (2010). Listening to voices and judging people. The International Journal of
Listening, 24(1), 19-33.
Johnstone, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2000). Vocal communication of emotion. In M. Lewis & J.
Haviland (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotion (pp. 220-235). New York, NY: Guilford.
Jones, S. E., & LeBaron, C. D. (2002). Research on the relationship between verbal and
nonverbal communication: Emerging integrations. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 499521.
Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S. (2012). Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch
influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 297(1738), 2698–2704.
Kopalle, P. K., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). Strategic management of expectations: The role of
disconfirmation sensitivity and perfectionism. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 386394.
Laufer, D., & Jung, J. M. (2010). Incorporating regulatory focus theory in product recall
communications to increase compliance with a product recall. Public Relations
Review, 36(2), 147-151.
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S. (2004). Measuring
empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychological medicine, 34(5),
911-920.
Lee, Y. H. (2000). Manipulating ad message involvement through information expectancy:
Effects on attitude evaluation and confidence. Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 29-43.
Martín-Santana, J. D., Muela-Molina, C., Reinares-Lara, E., & Rodríguez-Guerra, M. (2014).
Effectiveness of radio spokesperson's gender, vocal pitch and accent and the use of music
in radio advertising. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(3), 143-160.
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J.-A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and
time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 540-557.
McHenry, M., Parker, P. A., Baile, W. F., & Lenzi, R. (2012). Voice analysis during bad
news discussion in oncology: Reduced pitch, decreased speaking rate, and nonverbal
communication of empathy. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(5), 1073-1078.
Megehee, C. M., Dobie, K., & Grant, J. (2003). Time versus pause manipulation in
communications directed to the young adult population: Does it matter? Journal of
Advertising Research, 43(3), 281-292.
Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and
persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 615-624.
Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response
opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 85-99.
Murray, I. R., & Arnott, J. L. (1993). Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech:
A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 93(2), 1097-1108.
Peterson, R. A., Cannito, M. P., & Brown, S. P. (1995). An exploratory investigation of voice
characteristics and selling effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 15(1), 1-15.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model
of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(2), 135-146.
Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual
dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 283-296.
Ray, G. B. (1986). Vocally cued personality prototypes: An implicit personality theory
approach. Communications Monographs, 53(3), 266-276.
Reinhard, M. A., & Sporer, S. L. (2010). Content versus source cue information as a basis for
credibility judgments: The impact of task involvement. Social Psychology, 41(2), 93-104.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2001). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and
reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations
Review, 37(1), 20-27.
Skinner, C. H., Robinson, D. H., Robinson, S. L., Sterling, H. E., & Goodman, M. A. (1999).
Effects of advertisement speech rates on feature recognition, and product and speaker
ratings. International Journal of Listening, 13(1), 97-110.
Skuk, V. G., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2014). Influences of fundamental frequency, formant
frequencies, aperiodicity, and spectrum level on the perception of voice gender. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(1), 285-296.
Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257-268.
Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Speech of speech and persuasion: Evidence for
multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(10), 1051-1060.
Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt (2006). Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic
synthesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 421-446.
Street Jr, R. L., & Brady, R. M. (1982). Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of
evaluative domain, listener speech rate, and communication context. Communications
Monographs, 49(4), 290-308.
Surawski, M. K., & Ossoff, E. P. (2006). The effects of physical and vocal attractiveness on
impression formation of politicians. Current Psychology, 25(1), 15-27.
Tigue, C. C., Borak, D. J., O’Connor, J. J. M., Schandl, C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Voice
pitch influences voting behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 210-216.
Utz, S., Schultz, F., & Glocka, S. (2013). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis
type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
Public Relations Review, 39(1), 40-46.
Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Verhoeven, J. W. M. (2014). Emotional crisis communication.
Public Relations Review, 40(3), 526-536.