This experiment (N = 1,241) investigates the impact of code-mixing, defined as the use of more than one language, on processing fluency, narrative engagement, and cross-cultural attitudes. Using a sample of native English speakers located in the United States, we found that narratives that include code-mixing, a common feature of intercultural communication, felt more difficult to process and, in turn, led to more negative out-group bias and less narrative engagement. These findings integrate and extend intercultural communication and narrative theory and consider the challenges and opportunities that accompany diverse representations of characters in storytelling. Rather than highlight these challenges, however, we consider theoretically based strategies to improve audiences’ reception to cross cultural content and, in doing so, hope to inform communication practices that lead to a greater regard for others.
AbramsJ. R.McGaugheyK. J.HaghighatH. (2018). Attitudes toward Muslims: A test of the parasocial contact hypothesis and contact theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47(4), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2018.1443968
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Perseus Books.
3.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
AvarinoA.ThorburnR.WhiteK. S. (2021). Broken telephone: Children’s judgments of messages delivered by non-native speakers are influenced by processing fluency. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43(43), 2349–2355.
BaldwinJ. (1965). Another country. Dell Publishing.
8.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and theory: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
9.
BilandzicH.BusselleR. (2012). Narrative persuasion. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 200–219). Sage Publications.
10.
BondB. J. (2021). The development and influence of parasocial relationships with television characters: A longitudinal experimental test of prejudice reduction through parasocial contact. Communication Research, 48(4), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219900632
11.
BourhisR. Y.GilesH. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In GilesH. (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 119–135). Academic Press.
12.
BraddockK.DillardJ. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
13.
BrownW. J. (2015). Examining four processes of audience involvement with media personae: Transportation, parasocial interaction, identification, and worship. Communication Theory, 25(3), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12053
14.
BullockO. M.Colón AmillD.ShulmanH. C.DixonG. N. (2019). Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865687
15.
BullockO. M.ShulmanH. C.HuskeyR. (2021). Narratives are persuasive because they are easier to understand: Examining processing fluency as a mechanism of narrative persuasion.Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.719615
16.
BusselleR.BilandzicH. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x
CameronL.RutlandA. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00469.x
19.
CohenJ. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0403_01
20.
DeAndreaD. C.HolbertR. L. (2017). Increasing clarity where it is needed most: Articulating and evaluating theoretical contributions. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1304163
21.
de GraafA.HoekenH.SandersJ.BeentjesJ. W. J. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408594
22.
DragojevicM. (2020). Extending the fluency principle: Factors that increase listeners’ processing fluency positively bias their language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1663543
23.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2016). I don’t like you because you’re hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12079
24.
DragojevicM.Goatley-SoanS. (2022). Americans’ attitudes toward foreign accents: Evaluative hierarchies and underlying processes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1735402
25.
DragojevicM.OccaA.DaytonZ. A. (2024). Effects of character accent on perceived similarity, transportation, and narrative persuasion. Health Communication, 39(4), 818–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2185926
26.
FerranteE. (2011). My brilliant friend. Penguin Random House.
27.
FoucartA.CostaA.Morís-FernándezL.HartsuikerR. J. (2020). Foreignness or processing fluency? On understanding the negative bias toward foreign-accented speakers. Language Learning, 70(4), 974–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12413
28.
GasiorekJ.DragojevicM. (2023b). Effects of written code-mixing on processing fluency and perceptions of organizational inclusiveness. Communication Monographs, 90(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2023.2202749
29.
GasiorekJ.DragojevicM. (2024). Code-mixing in promotional materials for tourism: Effects of format on processing fluency and interest in cultural activities. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x231210329
30.
GilesH.WatsonB. M. (Eds.) (2013). The social meaning of language, dialect and accent: International perspectives on speech styles. Peter Lang.
31.
GongC. (2020). The violent delights. Margeret K. McElderry Books.
32.
GreenM. C.BrockT. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701
33.
GrizzardM.FrancemoneC. J.FrazerR.FitzgeraldK.MongeC. K.HenryC. (2023). A comprehensive experimental test of the affective disposition theory of drama. Journal of Communication, 73(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac053
34.
HambyA.BrinbergD.JaccardJ. (2018). A conceptual framework of narrative persuasion. Journal of Media Psychology, 30(3), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000187
35.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
36.
HerediaR. R.AltarribaJ. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00140
37.
HortonD.WohlR. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction; observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
IgwebuikeE. E.EgwuA. U. (2019). Code-mixing as sociolinguistic and literary strategy in Chinua Achebe’s short narratives. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 13(2), 103–116.
40.
JoyceN.HarwoodJ. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944
41.
KolersP. A. (1966). Reading and talking bilingually. American Journal of Psychology, 79(3), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/1420877
42.
LeeT. K.KimH. K. (2022). An enjoyable story, a persuasive story: Exploring narrative enjoyment in narrative persuasion. Journal of Media Psychology, 34(6), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000332
43.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2015). The interpersonal consequences of processing ease: Fluency as a metacognitive foundation for prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414558116
44.
MahootianS. (2005). Linguistic change and social meaning: Codeswitching in the media. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(3–4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090030401
45.
MahootianS. (2006). Code-switching and mixing. In BrownK. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 511–527). Elsevier.
46.
MallettR. K.WilsonT. D.GilbertD. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.265
47.
MarkowitzD. M.ShulmanH. C. (2021). The predictive utility of word familiarity for online engagements and funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(18), 18. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026045118
48.
MarlowM. L.GilesH. (2008). Who you tink you, talkin propah? Hawaiian Pidgin demarginalised. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447140802153535
49.
MarR. A.OatleyK. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x
50.
MederoK.HovickS. (2023). Narratives and mental illness: Understanding the factors that impact stigmatizing attitudes and behavioral intentions. Journal of Health Communication, 28(11), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2267498
51.
Moyer-GuséE. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
52.
MüllerK. B. (2015). Code-switching in Italo-Brazilian literature from Rio Grande do Sul and São Paulo: A sociolinguistic analysis of the forms and functions of literary code-switching. Language and Literature, 24(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947015585228
53.
OliverM. B.BartschA. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x
54.
OttenS.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-biased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1399
55.
PhillipsJ. E.OlsonM. A. (2014). When implicitly and explicitly measured racial attitudes align: The roles of social desirability and thoughtful responding. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.881287
56.
PlantE. A. (2004). Responses to interracial interactions over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1458–1471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264244
RakićT.SteffensM. C.MummendeyA. (2011). Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021522
59.
RiggsE. E.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2023). Losing awareness of our surroundings?: The role of attention during transportation into audio narratives. Journal of Media Psychology, 36(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000400
60.
RiggsE. E.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2024). Beyond the text: Testing narrative persuasion mechanisms with audio messages. Mass Communication & Society, 27(1), 148–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2065304
61.
Romero-RivasC.MorganC.CollierT. (2022). Accentism on trial: Categorization/stereotyping and implicit biases predict harsher sentences for foreign-accented defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x211022785
SchiappaE.GreggP. B.HewesD. E. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference? Will & Grace and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(4), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n04_02
64.
SchwarzN. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_2
65.
SchwarzN. (2006). Feelings, fit, and funny effects: A situated cognition perspective. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.20
66.
SchwarzN. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289–308). Sage Publications Ltd.
67.
SchwarzN. (2015). Metacognition. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.BorgidaE.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 203–229). American Psychological Association.
68.
ShulmanH. C.BullockO. M. (2019). Using metacognitive cues to amplify message content: A new direction in strategic communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1570472
69.
ShulmanH. C.DixonG. N.BullockO. M.Colón AmillD. (2020). The effects of jargon on processing fluency, self-perceptions, and scientific engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(5–6), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x20902177
70.
ShulmanH. C.SweitzerM. D. (2018). Advancing framing theory: Designing an equivalency frame to improve political information processing. Human Communication Research, 44(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx006
71.
SlaterM. D.RounerD. (2002). Entertainment? Education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x
72.
SpenceJ. L.HornseyM. J.StephensonE. M.ImutaK. (2024). Is your accent right for the job? A meta-analysis on accent bias in hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221130595
73.
StampsD. L.SahlmanJ. (2021). Audiences’ mediated contact with black characters in scripted television and support for racialized social issues. Communication Studies, 72(5), 834–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2021.1975140
74.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
75.
Tal-OrN.CohenJ. (2010). Understanding audience involvement: Conceptualizing and manipulating identification and transportation. Poetics, 38(4), 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2010.05.004
76.
TamboriniR.GrizzardM.David BowmanN.ReineckeL.LewisR. J.EdenA. (2011). Media enjoyment as need satisfaction: The contribution of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1025–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01593.x
77.
TullochM. K.HoffE. (2023). Filling lexical gaps and more: Code-switching for the power of expression by young bilinguals. Journal of Child Language, 50(4), 981–1004. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000307
WalterN.BilandzicH.SchwarzN.BrooksJ. J. (2021). Metacognitive approach to narrative persuasion: The desirable and undesirable consequences of narrative disfluency. Media Psychology, 24(5), 713–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1789477
80.
WeiL. (2008). Research perspectives on bilingualism and multilingualism. In WeiL.MoyerM. G. (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 1–17). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
81.
WestK.BruckmüllerS. (2013). Nice and easy does it: How perceptual fluency moderates the effectiveness of imagined contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.007
82.
WestonD.Gardner-ChlorosP. (2015). Mind the gap: What code-switching in literature can teach us about code-switching. Language and Literature, 24(3), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947015585066
83.
WolskoC.ParkB.JuddC. M. (2006). Considering the Tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 277–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0014-8
84.
WrightL. (2011). Mixed-language business writing: Five hundred years of code-switching. In JahrE. (Ed.), Language change (pp. 99–118). De Gruyter Mouton.
85.
YukiM.MadduxW. W.BrewerM. B.TakemuraK. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271305
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
