Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Interactions Between Native + Non-Native Speakers (Role of Cognitive Load,…

- - - - Influence job decisions based on accent
      - ~1 min recording of applicant describing themselves (same context)
      - Native speaker vs. Mexican Spanish Speaker of English
      - Rate applicant to see if discrimination
        
        Prejudice found
        
        Job suitability
        
        Likelihood of promotion
        
        Hiring decision
        
        Competence (despite same context)
        
        No prejudice in warmth
      - Results did not depend on whether Ps identified speaker as Mexican
      - Ps = ethnically diverse, result not depend on ethnicity
    - - Sales people - rate convincing, competency, trust
      - Listen to 6 identical pitches: American English, Greek-accented
      - Stat sig = always higher for americans
    - - Reactions to non/native speakers in infants
        
        Infants looked more a native speaker
        
        Native speaker, accented speakers
      - Reactions to non/native speakers in realtions to friends
        
        5 yr olds prefer being friends with:
        
        Their rather than different lang
        
        Native rather than foreign accent
        
        Lang + accent preference equally strong
        
        Doesn't matter if different lang/accent - child always want to play with native
      - Preferring own and disfavouring other social groups
    - - Racial prejudice = strong > compare to accent prejudice?
      - Native accent bias is larger than the own race bias
      - Which one want to be friends with? Black girl with native lang, white girl with non-native lang
      - No lang - normal racial prejudice
      - Lang - native accent = valued, prejudice = even stronger for accents
      - Can reverse racial prejudice
  - - - Racial attitudes questionnaire
      - Rate candidates on a job
        
        Strong, weak, ambiguous
        
        Black vs.white - identical info
      - Discrimination for ambiguous candidates is strong and did not diminish over the years
      - Not what we are aware of
      - More when we don't have strong explicit experience
    - - Implicitly learn stereotypes from our environment
      - Automatically activated and influence our impressions/actions
      - Exposure - learn + then use knowledge when processing info, even if disagree
  - - - 1st task uses unambiguous words
      - Can use pictures
      - 2nd task uses target words
      - 3rd task = categorisation on both elements at the same time
      - Then opposite categorisation - against values = more difficult, slower
    - - RT
        
        Target category + good share a side
        
        Target category + bad share a side
        
        Compatibility between view + categories
      - Distribution of race IAT
        
        Scores 2000-2006 > performance results
        
        Most show prejudice > slowed down by incompatible categories
        
        Target groups often also show implicit bias towards own ingroup
        
        Minority members also show prejudice
      - Greenworld et al (1998)
        
        Implicit cognition - IAT
        
        Differential association of 2 target concepts w/ attribute
        
        Highly associated categories + scared response key = faster performance
        
        Implicit measures differential association of 2 concepts + attribute
        
        Sensitive to automatic evaluative associations
    - - Does it predict behaviour?
      - Stanley, Sokol-Hessner, Banaji + Phelps (2011)
        
        Study 1
        
        Rate trust judgement
        
        Explicit racism measures
        
        Race IAT
        
        IAT explained trust judgements even after controlling for explicit racism
        
        Study 2
        
        Give pictures partner $0-10
        
        Given money gets quadrupled
        
        Partner decides to give half/none back
        
        IAT predicted behaviour beyond explicit racism
        
        Implicit captures something additional
      - Greenwald, Smith, Sriram, Bar Anan +Nosek (2009)
        
        Real world consequences
        
        1057 people who logged into the website the week before the 2008 US electrons
        
        Explicit measure of racism
        
        IAT
        
        Both implicit + explicit measures predicted voting, with each explaining additional variance
- - - - Male undergraduate students recede a random photo of an un/attractive woman, supposedly their conversational partner
      - Rated female conversation partner on traits based on provided info
      - 10 min convo
      - Raters listened only to the women's part of the conversation without knowing condition, and rated them
      - Raters listened only to the men's part of the conversation without knowing condition, and rated them
      - Stereotype
        
        Already prior to interaction
        
        Men rated the women in the attractive condition more positively
      - Self-fulfilling expectations
        
        Raters rated the women in the attractive condition more positively in those traits
      - How?
        
        Raters rated men in the attractive condition more positively
  - - - Ps heard a lecture and received a picture of TA (white vs. Asian)
      - Real speaker: native speaker of American English
      - Test: close task, speaker rating
      - Picture of Asian woman
        
        Ps rated the speech as less intelligible _ more foreign - accented
        
        Performed less will on the close task
      - Expectations case distort perception > prejudice?
    - - Ps: 1/2 Caucasians, 1/2 Chinese ethnicity > both native English speakers
      - Sentence transcription in noise with/without photo of Asian speaker
      - Chinese Canadian are more influenced by photo
        
        Transcribe worse than non-heritage Chinese Ps
        
        Understood less well + rated more accented when presented with photo
        
        Expected Asian accent therefore misleading
      - Explicit/implicit measures of prejudice did not predict performance
      - Greater interaction with Chinese speakers = greater difficulty in audio+face condition > wrong expectation
    - - Mandarin - accented speech in noise presented with an Asian face/Caucasian face/silhouette
      - Ps understood better when presented with the photo of the Asian woman
      - Expectations rather than bias can explain Rubin's resultsh
      - Use expectations to process speech + perform better when they match
- - - - Takes more effort
      - Slower to process
      - Less accurate
      - Has high cognitive load
  - - - Explicit prejudice
      - Implicit prejudice
      - Expectations (-ive and +ive consequences)
      - Difficultly of processing the non-native speaker's speech
    - - Fulfilment of expectations because of reaction to prejudice
      - Emotion in L2
- - - - Tested 2nd lang learners always studied lan in classrooms setting, and did not live in their 2nd lang therefore remains neutral
      - Lang evokes lesser emotional response, potentially because it is less associated with emotional experiences
      - During decisions making reduced reliance on system 1 (heuristic, emotional, automatic) + therefore more on system 2 (rational, effortful)
  - - - 400,000 die
    - - 66.6% 600,000 die, 33.3% no one die
  - - - 3 experiments
        
        English learners of Japanese
        
        Korean learners of English
        
        English learners o French
      - Framing effects in L1 but not L2
    - - Korean learners of English
      - 50% chance of winning £111, 50% chance of losing £78 (HIGH STAKES< EMOTIONAL)
      - 50% chance or winning £.33, 50% change on losing £.13 (LOW STAKES, NON-EMOTIONAL)
      - Greater loss aversion in L2, greater rationality in L2
      - Less emotional in L2 lead to different decisions
- - - - Chicago - 34.3%
      - LA - 60.5%
      - New York - 47.5%