interviewing.io runs an interviewing platform.
They noticed women were performing worse than men.
They built a voice modulator to mask the gender of candidates.
Masking had no effect on interview performance for any scoring criteria.
They speculate that gender differences in outcomes are caused by women quitting more quickly in response to negative feedback.
Now if they had written the second part of the title like, "You won't believe what happened next!" that would be clickbait.
If you'd like to clearly differentiate it from a more stringent definition of clickbait, I guess one could call it clickbait by omission.
It's like when you pretend to have thrown a nut to a squirrel, but in reality you just made a gesture. The squirrel will go look for the nut regardless. You not throwing a 'decoy' nut isn't the important part w.r.t. the desired outcome. You still 'baited' them.
Anything that leads to a reader/viewer asking "Why?/What?", and which triggers the human curiosity that leads to a click - constitutes clickbait.
Such content may later disappoint or cause annoyance to the reader/viewer; but they still clicked, which is all that matters.
They could have, but that’s background information supporting the article’s topic, not its findings. You and several others will walk away with that finding from their research, and I will walk away having read and understood the interest in better understanding how attrition affects outcomes. I wouldn’t have any clue that I could learn that from the title you suggest. If they’d tried to cram the point of interest I found into the title, it would be derided as editorializing. The title is probably the best they could do: we had a hypothesis. Implicit in that is some findings and some further line of questioning. Sure that’s “clickbait” in a literal sense, but it’s a title. If you could fit the article in the title you wouldn’t have a distinction between articles and titles. You’d have tweet. Just one. Choose your wording carefully!
Is so common it must be in some clickbait 101 subreddit wiki
idk if this makes sense but i have a more stereotypically "confident" inflection, like my phrases don't rise in pitch at the end, i don't have the "creaky voice" thing etc. i also notice women tend to use more superlative optimistic phrasing ("perfect" vs "good" in response to something) and less definite language (prefacing more often with "i feel" or "maybe").
this is all obv anecdotal but i'm guessing i could guess male vs. female even if the pitches were modulated to be equal. shame there's no example of how male voices sounded modulated.
like the female example they gave it's still extremely apart from how normal men talk, i didn't have to focus at all. though tbh my first thought was it sounded like a gay male so maybe it sort of works?
I remember getting pulled over for speeding with a female in the passenger seat. Afterwards, she was quite adept at pointing out exactly when he made up his mind and the outcome could not be changed.