Skip to main content
Log in

Mid-Adolescents’ and Adults’ Recognition of Vocal Cues of Emotion and Social Intent: Differences by Expression and Speaker Age

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that the ability to recognize vocal portrayals of socio-emotional expressions improves with age throughout childhood and adolescence. The current study examined whether stimulus-level factors (i.e., the age of the speaker and the type of expression being conveyed) interacted with listeners’ developmental stage to predict listeners’ recognition accuracy. We assessed mid-adolescent (n = 50, aged 13–15 years) and adult (n = 87, 18–30 years) listeners’ ability to recognize basic emotions and social expressions in the voices of both adult and youth actors. Adults’ emotional prosody was better recognized than that of youth, and adult listeners were more accurate overall than were mid-adolescents. Interaction effects revealed that youths’ accuracy was equivalent to adult listeners’ when hearing adult portrayals of anger, disgust, friendliness, happiness, and meanness, and youth portrayals of disgust, happiness, and meanness. Our findings highlight the importance of speaker characteristics and type of expression on listeners’ ability to recognize vocal cues of emotion and social intent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hu was computed as follows (Wagner 1993): (number of correct responses/number of times that stimuli category was presented) × (number of correct responses/number of times that response was made).

References

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Morningstar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the McGill Research Ethics Board, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Appendix: Full Factorial ANOVA Model Results

Appendix: Full Factorial ANOVA Model Results

Vocal cues

df

F

η 2

p

Listener age

(1, 132)

14.49

.10

< .001

Listener gender

(1, 132)

10.42

.07

< .01

Speaker age

(1, 132)

140.71

.52

< .001

Speaker gender

(1, 132)

4.84

.04

< .05

Expression

(5.28, 696.76)

130.89

.50

< .001

Speaker age × listener age

(1, 132)

0.23

< .01

.64

Speaker gender × listener gender

(1, 132)

0.01

< .001

.93

Listener age × listener gender

(1, 129)

0.09

.001

.76

Listener age × speaker gender

(1, 132)

4.19

.03

.04

Speaker age × listener gender

(1, 132)

0.12

.001

.73

Speaker age × speaker gender

(1, 132)

2.03

.02

.16

Expression × listener age

(5.28, 696.96)

3.54

.03

< .01

Expression × listener gender

(5.28, 696.96)

0.54

< .01

.76

Expression × speaker age

(5.25, 692.39)

12.02

.08

< .001

Expression × speaker gender

(5.34, 705.42)

27.49

.17

< .001

Expression × listener age × listener gender

(5.28, 681.12)

1.93

.01

.08

Speaker age × listener age × listener gender

(1, 129)

0.18

.001

.67

Speaker gender × listener age × listener gender

(1, 129)

0.93

.01

.34

Speaker age × speaker gender × listener age

(1, 132)

1.65

.01

.20

Speaker age × speaker gender × listener gender

(1, 132)

0.80

.01

.37

Speaker age × expression × listener age

(5.25, 696.96)

3.55

.03

< .01

Speaker age × expression × listener gender

(5.25, 696.96)

1.68

.01

.13

Speaker gender × expression × listener age

(5.34, 696.96)

1.53

.01

.17

Speaker gender × expression × listener gender

(5.34, 696.96)

1.60

.01

.15

Speaker age × speaker gender × expression

(5.08, 670.26)

11.04

.08

< .001

Speaker age × speaker gender × listener age × listener gender

(1, 129)

3.16

.02

.08

Speaker age × expression × listener age × listener gender

(5.25, 681.12)

0.25

< .01

.95

Speaker gender × expression × listener age × listener gender

(5.34, 681.12)

0.95

.01

.45

Speaker age × speaker gender × expression × listener age

(5.08, 696.96)

1.19

.01

.31

Speaker age × speaker gender × expression × listener gender

(5.08, 696.96)

1.37

.01

.23

Speaker age × speaker gender × expression × listener age × listener gender

(5.08, 681.12)

1.01

.01

.41

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morningstar, M., Ly, V.Y., Feldman, L. et al. Mid-Adolescents’ and Adults’ Recognition of Vocal Cues of Emotion and Social Intent: Differences by Expression and Speaker Age. J Nonverbal Behav 42, 237–251 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0274-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-018-0274-7

Keywords

Navigation