When it comes to power and authority, a deep voice has long been perceived as an advantage.
Studies have shown that men with lower-pitched voices are often viewed as more confident, dominant, and even more competent.
In politics and business, this perception is well-documented—leaders with deep voices tend to command attention, secure higher salaries, and even manage more successful companies.
But what if this longstanding assumption doesn’t hold up in the courtroom?
What if, instead of projecting authority, a deep voice actually hurts a lawyer’s chances of winning a case before the highest court in the land?
New research suggests exactly that—and the implications could be more far-reaching than you think.
Deep Voices vs. Supreme Court Wins: A Study That Challenges Expectations
A team led by linguist Alan Yu from the University of Chicago and legal theorist Daniel Chen of ETH Zurich conducted a fascinating study to test whether a lawyer’s vocal characteristics influenced their success rate in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Their method was straightforward yet revealing.
The researchers analyzed 60 recorded arguments from male attorneys presenting their cases before the Supreme Court.
Each recording included the standard opening statement: “Mister Chief Justice, may it please the Court.”
But the real experiment happened next.
The team recruited 200 volunteers and asked them to rate each speaker based on several vocal traits:
- Masculinity – How deep and stereotypically “male” the voice sounded.
- Confidence – How self-assured and persuasive the voice appeared.
- Attractiveness, intelligence, trustworthiness, and education level – Other qualities that could factor into perceived credibility.
Once the ratings were compiled, the researchers compared the perceived vocal traits to actual court outcomes.
The results? A complete surprise to the research team.
A Deep Voice Could Actually Work Against You
Contrary to expectations, lawyers with deeper voices were actually more likely to lose their cases. The data showed a clear trend:
- Higher masculinity ratings were associated with lower win rates.
- Higher confidence ratings, however, were linked to greater success.
“It was a surprise to all of us,” Yu told New Scientist. While confidence undeniably played a role in legal success, masculinity in voice alone was a disadvantage—suggesting that something about an overly authoritative tone might actually backfire in a courtroom setting.
Why Would a Deep Voice Be a Disadvantage in Court?
This research challenges the assumption that deep voices always project strength and credibility.
In the courtroom, a lawyer’s role is not just to sound authoritative—it’s to persuade.
While dominance may be valuable in a corporate boardroom or on the campaign trail, in the Supreme Court, a lawyer must connect with justices, engage them intellectually, and exude trustworthiness over raw dominance.
Could a deeper voice come across as too aggressive or rigid?
Possibly. In a setting where nuance and legal reasoning matter more than raw assertion, a measured, engaging, and adaptable vocal style may be more effective than sheer vocal power.
The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making
This study also speaks to a larger issue—how non-verbal cues influence judicial decisions.
Theoretically, Supreme Court rulings should be based strictly on the merits of the case, the strength of legal arguments, and constitutional interpretation.
However, research has shown that many factors can subtly sway a judge’s decision-making, including:
- Facial expressions and body language
- Whether a judge has recently eaten (seriously—studies show judges are harsher before lunch!)
- Unconscious biases related to gender, race, and even voice pitch
If something as seemingly trivial as the depth of a lawyer’s voice can impact outcomes, it raises important questions about how subjectivity seeps into supposedly objective legal proceedings.
What This Means for Lawyers – And the Rest of Us
While this study focuses on the courtroom, its implications extend far beyond law.
If we tend to favor confidence over masculinity, the same could apply in other high-stakes environments such as:
- Job interviews – Does a deep voice actually reduce hireability in certain fields?
- Sales and negotiations – Could a high-pitched but confident speaker outperform a deep-voiced one?
- Leadership roles – Are we wrongly assuming that deep voices make better leaders, when confidence is the real key?
This research complicates the traditional narrative that a deep voice is always an advantage.
It suggests that in many situations, confidence and connection matter more than vocal dominance.
Rethinking How We Judge Voices
This study on Supreme Court lawyers offers a rare glimpse into the subtle biases that shape professional success.
While deep voices have long been seen as symbols of authority and strength, they might not always be the advantage we assume—especially in fields where persuasion is key.
So the next time you find yourself listening to a public speaker, a politician, or even a lawyer arguing a case, ask yourself:
Are you drawn to their voice because of its depth, or because of its confidence? The answer might surprise you.
