Additionally, we used General Linear Models (GLM) to test for possible effects of sex, age, and country on voice attractiveness ratings. Similarly, to test whether mean F0, range F0, and VTL of speech and singing differ between men and women or between Brazilian and Czech participants, we performed a multivariate GLM with mean F0 and F0 range as dependent variables and sex and country of targets as factors. Due to a limited samples size, we evaluated only simple models. The effect size displayed is a partial Eta-squared (?p 2 ).
Efficiency
We found large effects of targets’ sex on all vocal parameters; mean speech F0 (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.878), mean speech F0 range (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.086), VTL as measured from speech (F = , df = 1,153, p 2 = 0.934), mean singing F0 (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.831), mean singing F0 range (F = 7.00, df = 1, 153, p = 0.009, ?p 2 = 0.045), and VTL as measured from singing (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.911). Estimated marginal means revealed that women had a higher F0 and F0 range and shorter VTL than men (for mean values, see Table 1). There was also a significant effect of the target country on speech F0 range (F = 4.31, df = 1, 153, p = 0.040, ?p 2 = 0.028), VTL as measured from speech (F = , df = 1,153, p = 0.001, ?p 2 = 0.065), and VTL as measured from singing (F = 6.59, df = 1, 153, p = 0.011, ?p 2 = 0.042). Estimated marginal means show that Czech participants had a lower speech F0 range and longer VTL than the Brazilian participants (see Table 1 for details).
Table 1. Suggest simple volume (F0) and the listing of practical frequency (F0 range) within the semitones, and you can VTL (into the centimeters) in visitors.
It is value listing that average VTL tips for males and you will ladies (Table 1) compare to people-level averages (Pisanski et al., 2014).
Evaluations Ranging from Talking and you can Singing Voice
F0 mentioned out of message are highly positively synchronised having F0 measured off singing in people (r = 0.800, Letter = 73, p 2 = , df = forty two, p dos = , df = forty-two, p = 0.26 during the males, ? dos = , df = forty-two, p = 0.05 in women). Email address details are hence claimed on their own for men and you will lady however, as one for Czech and you will Brazilian participants.
Using road studies (find Supplementary Dining tables S6, S7 to own full patterns), i discovered that inside the people, lower-pitched message is actually rated as more attractive (Figure 1). An equivalent held out-of singing, however, so it dating didn’t started to analytical relevance. Within the guys, a wider speech variety, but not vocal diversity, try ranked as more attractive. Glamorous address was absolutely regarding the total SOI, however, that it relationship failed to maintain steadily its stability within the jackknife resampling. The entire SOI is directly connected to a diminished F0 during the address and higher 
F0 from inside the vocal. Lbs got a strong and confident direct influence on perceived speech and you will singing appeal. Age got a terrible influence on message appeal nevertheless impression did not will always be secure lower than jackknifing (find Secondary Desk S8).
Shape 1. Path research outcomes for F0. Arrows depict projected details. Matchmaking somewhat not the same as 0 (expressed by the powerful permutation produced p thinking) is coloured (self-confident dating within the eco-friendly, bad for the purple) and you may labeled having standardized model quotes. Matchmaking you to didn’t meet the jackknife value balances requirements is actually illustrated with good dashed range. F0 = mediocre standard regularity; WSR = waist-to-neck ratio; and WHR = waist-to-stylish ratio.