This study examined the relationship between American listeners’ stereotypes, processing fluency, and attitudes toward speakers of five different foreign accents: French, Hindi, Mandarin, Russian, and Vietnamese. For each accent, (a) listeners’ stereotypes toward the national group marked by the accent and (b) listeners’ fluency processing speech produced in the accent were both positively associated with their attitudes toward speakers who spoke in that accent, even after controlling for the other factor. These findings support the theoretical claim that language attitudes are a function of both stereotypes and processing fluency.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (1987). Language attitudes, frames of reference, and social identity: A Scottish dimension. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3-4), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8763004
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
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
4.
BallB. (1983). Stereotypes of anglo-saxon and non-anglo-saxon accents: Some exploratory Australian studies with the matched guise technique. Language Sciences, 5(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(83)80021-7
5.
BirneyM. E.RabinovichA.MortonT. A. (2020). Where are you from? An investigation into the intersectionality of accent strength and nationality status on perceptions of nonnative speakers in Britain. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(4), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20932628
6.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
7.
CrispR. J.HewstoneM. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430299024001
8.
CristiaA.SeidlA.VaughnC.SchmaleR.BradlowA.FlocciaC. (2012). Linguistic processing of accented speech across the lifespan. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 479. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00479
9.
DovidioJ. F.GluszekA. (2012). Accent, nonverbal behavior, and intergroup bias. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 87–99). Routledge.
10.
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
11.
DragojevicM.BerglundC.BlauveltT. (2018). Figuring out who’s who: The role of social categorization in the language attitudes process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17706942
12.
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
13.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2014). The reference frame effect: An intergroup perspective on language attitudes. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12017
14.
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
15.
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
16.
DragojevicM.GilesH.Goatley-SoanS.DaytonZ. (in press). Americans’ attitudes toward British accents: The role of social categorization, perceived group prototypicality, and processing fluency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2346575
17.
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
18.
DragojevicM.TatumN. T.BeckA.-C.McAninchK. (2019). Effects of accent strength expectancy violations on language attitudes. Communication Studies, 70(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1526815
19.
FasoliF.DragojevicM.RakićT.JohnsonS. (2023). Voice matters: Social categorization and stereotyping of speakers based on sexual orientation and nationality categories. Language and Communication, 90, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2023.02.001
20.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
21.
FlocciaC.ButlerJ.GoslinJ.EllisL. (2009). Regional and foreign accent processing in English: Can listeners adapt?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(4), 379–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-008-9097-8
22.
GarrettP. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press.
23.
GassS.VaronisE. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00996.x
GilesH.WatsonB.2013). The social meanings of language, dialect, and accent: International perspectives on speech styles. Peter Lang.
26.
GluszekA.DovidioJ. F. (2010). 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.
HansenK.RakićT.SteffensM. C. (2018). Foreign-looking native-accented people: More competent when first seen rather than heard. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 1001–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732389
KinzlerK. D.DupouxE.SpelkeE. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(30), 12577–12580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705345104
30.
KinzlerK. D.ShuttsK.CorrellJ. (2010). Priorities in social categories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.739
31.
KinzlerK. D.ShuttsK.DejesusJ.SpelkeE. S. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children's social preferences. Social Cognition, 27(4), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623
32.
KircherR.ZippL.2022). Research methods in language attitudes. Cambridge University Press.
33.
LambertW. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00578.x
34.
LambertW. E.AnisfeldM.Yeni-KomshianG. (1965). Evaluation reactions of Jewish and arab adolescents to dialect and language variations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022088
35.
LambertW. E.HodgsonR. C.GardnerR. C.FillenbaumS. (1960). Evaluational reac- tions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044430
36.
LehnertT. E.HörstermannT. (2019). The role of implicit nationality preference in speaker evaluations in the multilingual context of Montreal. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18820080
37.
LehnertT. E.Krolak-SchwerdtS.HörstermannT. (2018). Language and nationality attitudes as distinct factors that influence speaker evaluations: Explicit versus implicit attitudes in Luxembourg. Language & Communication, 61, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.01.005
38.
LindemannS. (2003). Koreans, Chinese or Indians? Attitudes and ideologies about non-native English speakers in the United States. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 348–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00228
39.
Lippi-GreenR. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2018). The effects of category and physical features on stereotyping and evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.008
42.
McKenzieR. M. (2008). The role of variety recognition in Japanese university students’ attitudes towards English speech varieties. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 29(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd565.0
43.
MontgomeryG.AchemeD. (2022). Processing fluency and inferred motive: L1 English users’ evaluations of non-standard accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(5), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221081010
44.
MunroM. J.DerwingT. M. (1995a). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x
45.
MunroM. J.DerwingT. M. (1995b). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800305
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
48.
RoesselJ.SchoelC.StahlbergD. (2018). What's in an accent? General spontaneous biases against nonnative accents: An investigation with conceptual and auditory IATs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2339
49.
RoesselJ.SchoelC.StahlbergD. (2020). Modern notions of accent-ism: Findings, conceptualizations, and implications for interventions and research on nonnative accents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19884619
50.
RoesselJ.SchoelC.ZimmermannR.StahlbergD. (2019). Shedding new light on the evaluation of accented speakers: Basic mechanisms behind nonnative listeners’ evaluations of nonnative accented job candidates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17747904
51.
RubinD. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973770
52.
RyanE. B. (1983). Social psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker evaluations of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004824
53.
SchoelC.RoesselJ.EckJ.JanssenJ.PetrovicB.RotheA.RudertS. C.StahlbergD. (2013). “Attitudes towards languages” (ATOL) scale: A global instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(1), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12457922
54.
SebastianR. J.RyanE. B.KeoghT.SchmidtA. (1980). The effects of negative affect arousal on reactions to speakers. In GilesH.RobinsonW. P.SmithP. M. (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 203–208). Pergamon.
55.
ShinY. K.LindemannS. (in press). The role of speaker categorization in South Korean attitudes toward North Korean accents. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0058
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
59.
WeinbergerS. H. (2017). The Speech Accent Archive. George Mason University. http://accent.gmu.edu
60.
YookC.LindemannS. (2013). The role of speaker identification in Korean university students’ attitudes towards five varieties of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.734509
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.
