Guided by communication accommodation theory and the fluency principle of language attitudes, this experimental study examined the serial mediation effects of processing fluency and inferred motives on language attitudes toward standard- and non-standard-accented speech. Using the matched guise technique, participants were randomly assigned to listen to an audio recording read in either a Standard American English (SAE) or Indian Tamil English (ITE) accent. Compared to the ITE accent, participants who listened to the SAE accent reported significantly higher processing fluency of the speaker's talk, more positive inferred cognitive motive from the speaker, and attributed higher solidarity to the speaker. However, the experimental conditions yielded no differences in inferred affective motive or status evaluations. Mediation analysis indicated significant indirect effects on status and solidarity through processing fluency and inferred cognitive motives as serial mediators. The indirect effects through inferred affective motive were not significant. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AchemeD. E.CioneaI. A. (in press). “Oh, I like your accent”: Perceptions and evaluations of standard and non-standard accented English speakers. Communication Reports. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2037679.
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(24), 9369–9372. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601071103
3.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.985
4.
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
5.
ChandlerJ.RosenzweigC.MossA. J.RobinsonJ.LitmanL. (2019). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2022–2038. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7
6.
DragojevicM. (2016). Language attitudes as intergroup terrain. In MaassA.GilesH. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 51–66). Peter Lang.
7.
DragojevicM. (2018). Language attitudes. In GilesH.HarwoodJ. (Eds.), Oxford Research encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 2, pp. 179–192). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.437
8.
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
9.
DragojevicM.FasoliF.CramerJ.RakićT. (2021). Toward a century of language attitudes research: Looking back and moving forward. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20966714
10.
DragojevicM.GasiorekJ.GilesH. (2016). Accommodative strategies as core of the theory. In GilesH. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 36–59). Cambridge University Press.
11.
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
12.
DragojevicM.GilesH.BeckA. C.TatumN. T. (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1322213
13.
DragojevicM.GilesH.WatsonB. M. (2013). Language ideologies and language attitudes: A foundational framework. In GilesH.WatsonB. (Eds.), The social meanings of language, dialect and accent: International perspectives on speech styles (pp. 1–25). Peter Lang.
14.
DragojevicM.Goatley-SoanS. (2020). Americans’ attitudes toward foreign accents: Evaluative hierarchies and underlying processes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1735402
15.
FuertesJ. N.GottdienerW. H.MartinH.GilbertT. C.GilesH. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.862
16.
GarrettP. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press.
17.
GasiorekJ. (2015). Perspective-taking, inferred motive and perceived accommodation in nonaccommodative conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(5), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15584681
18.
GasiorekJ. (2016). The “dark side” of CAT. In GilesH. (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 85–104). Cambridge University Press.
19.
GasiorekJ.DragojevicM. (2017). The effects of accumulated underaccommodation on perceptions of underaccommodative communication and speakers. Human Communication Research, 43(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12105
20.
GasiorekJ.GilesH. (2012). Effects of inferred motive on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication. Human Communication Research, 38(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01426.x
21.
GasiorekJ.GilesH. (2015). The role of inferred motive in processing nonaccommodation: Evaluations of communication and speakers. Western Journal of Communication, 79(4), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1066030
GilesH.MarlowM. L. (2011). Theorizing language attitudes existing frameworks, an integrative model, and new directions. Annals of the International Communication Association, 35(1), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2011.11679116
24.
GilesH.WatsonB. (2013). The social meanings of language, dialect and accent: International perspectives on speech styles. Peter Lang.
25.
GluszekA.DovidioJ. F. (2010b). Speaking with a nonnative accent: Perceptions of bias, communication difficulties, and belonging in the United States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359590
26.
GluszekA.DovidioJ. F. (2010a). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288
27.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
28.
ImamuraM.ZhangY. B.HarwoodJ. (2011). Japanese Sojourners’ attitudes toward Americans: Exploring the influences of communication accommodation, linguistic competence, and relational solidarity in intergroup contact. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 21(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.21.1.09ima
29.
KangO. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38(2), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005
30.
KangO.YawK. (2021). Social judgement of L2 accented speech stereotyping and its influential factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1931247
31.
LambertW. E.HodgsonR. C.GardnerR. C.FillenbaumS. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044430
32.
LindemannS.CampbellM.LitzenbergJ.SubtireluN. C. (2016). Explicit and implicit training methods for improving native English speakers’ comprehension of nonnative speech. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.2.1.04lin
33.
Lippi-GreenR. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
34.
MacSwanJ. (2020). Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-based language education. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 28–36. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777540
35.
MontgomeryG.ZhangY. B.ImamuraM. (2021). The effects of Latino immigrants’ acculturation strategy and U.S. Americans’ assimilation attitudes on perceptions of accommodation satisfaction and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 82(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.03.008
36.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
37.
SchwarzN. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663 jcp1404_2
38.
SchwarzN.BlessH.StrackF.KlumppG.Rittenauer-SchatkaH.SimonsA. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195
39.
ShimC.ZhangY. B.HarwoodJ. (2012). Direct and mediated intercultural contact: Koreans’ attitudes toward US Americans. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(3), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2012.670715
40.
ThakerarJ. N.GilesH.CheshireJ. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In FraserC.SchererK. R. (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255). Cambridge University Press.
WhittleseaB. W. A.WilliamsL. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? The unexpected basis of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98(2-3), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(97)00040-1
43.
ZhangY. B.GilesH. (2018). Communication accommodation theory. In KimY. Y. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 95–108). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0156
