Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41917652›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Can conceptual beliefs shape impressions from voices?

Mairi Irvine, Nadine Lavan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Time after time: Voice perception from first impressions to identity recognition.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mairi IrvineDepartment of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Nadine LavanDepartment of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. n.lavan@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7569-0817

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 220448/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When we hear a voice, we routinely form an impression of the speaker's personality and characteristics. Previous work has primarily modelled first impression formation as a bottom-up, feed-forward process, where acoustic cues drive how different person characteristics, such as trustworthiness or competence, are perceived from unfamiliar voices. Contributions from top-down processes to impression formation, such as the influences of social stereotypes and other conceptual beliefs, have to date received less attention in voice research. Here, we quantify how much such top-down processes could contribute to first impression formation by mapping representational spaces for (1) first impression judgments from voices and (2) conceptual beliefs about person characteristics in other people in a behavioural study. Using Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA), we observe substantial structural similarities between these spaces. This association shows that conceptual beliefs could play a role in shaping impressions, via top-down influences. This effect generalises across voice types (e.g., typical, AI-generated, pathological voices), listener samples, and even across modalities to facial impressions. Aligning with recent theoretical advances in social psychology, our findings thus call for vocal impression research to start to explicitly model and explore the interplay between top-down and bottom-up processes during impression formation.

Indexed as

Concept FormationSocial PerceptionSpeech PerceptionStereotypingVoiceAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultConceptual beliefsFirst impressionsRepresentational similarity analysisStereotypesTop-downVoices

Identifiers

PMID41917652
PMCPMC13038661

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.