Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Interactions Between Native & Non-Native Speakers - Coggle Diagram
Interactions Between Native & Non-Native Speakers
Speakers
Stats
More bi & multilinguals that monolinguals
56% EU residents speak >2 languages
And Europe have lower % than Asia & Africa
20%< London residents report main langage to be different than English
30%< in some boroughs
Speaker at home a language other than English
Chicago = 34.3%
Los Angeles = 60.5%
New York = 47.5%
Identity Marker
Accent serves as identity marker
In/outgroup
Often accents that perceived as reflecting competence are perceived as unfriendly
Prevalent in American context
Less prevalent in UK context
Accents
Everyone has an accent
If think don't have one means speak the privileged ne that considered standard
Are speaking 'standard'
Explicit & Implicit Prejudice
Types of Prejudice
Explicit
Implicit
Explicit Prejudice
Mocking
Mocking accent seen as acceptable
Even to do so in front of person
Example: Prejudice
Traitors is Welsh accent more trustworthy
Acceptance of confronting/comebacks those who mock accent
Trump puts on heavy French accent to mock Macron
Countries mocking accent
Americans
Londoners mock Irish accent
Study: Explicit Pejudice
Prejudice in workplaces
Prejudice in childhood
Prejudice in Childhood
Prejudice in infants
Prejudice in childhood
Study: Prejudice in Race & Accent (Kinzler et al., 2009)
P: Infants
M: American/French accent & same/different race
R: Native accent bias larger than own race bias
Study: Prejudice in Development (Kinzler et al., 2007)
P: 5-6 month old American & French infants
M: Infants exposed to silent baseline, native/English-accent, French-accent/native, silent test trial
R: Infants showed preference for native speaker
Measured through who looked at more
R: Implications
Preference when starting to understand patterns of own language
Study: Prejudice in Ambiguous Cases (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000)
M: Racial attitudes questionnaire, separate session rate student applicants for new programme
R: Discrimination for ambiguous candidates strong & not diminish w. years
Explicit prejudice decreased w. years
No discrimination when candidate clearly strong/weak
M: Candidates
Clearly strong white candidate
Clearly strong black candidate
Ambiguous qualifications white candidate
Ambiguous qualifications black candidate
Clearly weak white candidate
Clearly weak black candidate
R: Implications
Important to look at average vs extremes in research
May be because is difficult to justify why do/do not hire someone particularly good/bad at job
Implicit Prejudice
Implicity learn stereotypes from environment
Might not be aware of them & may conflict w. explicit attitudes & beliefs
Automatically activated & influcence impressions/beliefs
Consideration of Research
In many studies do not know if prejudice explicit/implicit/both
Study: Implicit Association Test
Reaction time when target category & good share a side compared w. reaction time when target category & bad share a side
If no prejudice should be equally fast in both trials
Target groups often also show implicit bias toward own ingroup
Study: IAT Accent (Roessel et al., 2017)
P: German speakers
M: Two versions of IAT
R: Ps showed anti-accent bias
Stronger w. auditory version
Equally strong w. accent Ps find attractive/unattractive
M: Versions
Classify positive & negative
Labels accent & accent-free in German
Recordings of single words by French (prestigious & attractive), Russian (low prestige & unattractive), & native German speakers
Study: IAT ALT Accent (Roessel et al., 2017)
M: Additional IAT w. all conditions tested w. both labels accent & accent-free/recording of native/non-native speakers of different language
R: Ps associated accent w. low competence, low trust, negative emotions
Regardless of whether tested w. labels/audio recordings
Same negative association for all foreign accents
Not associate foreign-accented w. low sociability in labels but negatively associate when tested w. recordings
M: Versions
Competence words
Trust words
Sociability words
Pictures of positive & negative emotions
M: Testing
Accent & accent-free in German
Different languages
French
Russian
Italian
Turkish
Study: IAT Predictive Value (Stanley et al., 2011)
M: Three versions of prejudice testing, give pictured partenr $0-$10 & given money quadrupled, partner decide to give half/none back
R: IAT predicted behaviour beyond explicit racism
M: Versions of Prejudice Testing
Trust judgement
Explicit racism measures
Race IAT
Explain trust judgements even after controlling for explicit racism
Study: IAT Real-World Example of Predictive Value (Greenwald et al., 2009)
P: 1057 people who logged into website week before 2008 US elections
M: Explicit measure of racism & IAT
R: Both implicit & explicit measures predicted voting
Each explained additional variance
Prejudice
Most examples regional accents
When comes to foreign accent stereotypes & difficulty understanding stronger
Prejudice in Workplace
Legal not to hire someone because of accent
Is not a protected characteristic
Study: Prejudice in Hiring Decisions (Hosoda et al., 2012)
A: Ratings of job suitability, likelihood of promotion, hiring decision, competence, warmth
P: Ethnically diverse
M: Listen to ~1 min recording of applicant of diff language speaking & rate on factors
R: Not depend on whether Ps identified speaker as Mexican or P own ethnicity
R: Implication
Probably not enough power to detect own ethnicity result differences
M: Speaker
Native speaker
Mexican Spanish speaker of English
A: Ratings
Job suitability
Likelihood of promotion
Hiring decision
Competence
Warmth
Study: Prejudice in Customer Service (Tsalikis et al., 1991)
A: Rate salesperson on levels
M: Listen to identical pitches & rate salesperson
R: Stat significance between ratings of native vs accented speaker
M: Speaker
American English
Greek-accented
A: Levels
Intelligent
Friendly
Honest
Clear
Professional
Self-confident
Credible
With status
Knowledgeable
Dependable
Humble
Convincing
Helpful
Competent
Cheerful
Buy from him
Recommend
Image to product
Image to store
Effectiveness
R: Implication
Lowest rated American ranked higher than highest Greek
Despite Greek accent not being associated w. particular negative stereotype
Study: Prejudice in Accent Prestige (Livingston et al., 2017)
A: Rating based on native, prestigious, & non-prestigious accent
M: Message about Alumni opening new café & how better than Starbucks, offer voucher
R: Ps more likely to choose voucher for new cafe when message in native accent regardless of accent prestige
Present in French/Chinese
Replicated in Indian/English
R: Implications
No diff between French & Chinese accent suggest not effect of prestige
M: Testing Situation
French/Chinese/Native American accent
Indian/British/Native American
Study: Predictive Value for Accent Prejudice (Livingston et al., 2017)
A: Hiring decision w. native vs non-native accent
M: IAT for American vs foregin
R: Ps showed pro-American bias
IAT moderated performance
IAT predictive of performance
A: Accent
Native American accent
Non-native Indian & British English accent
M: IAT
Typical American vs foreign names
R: Implication
Those w. implicit pro-American bias show ingroup preference
More + evaluations of American candidates rather than devaluation of foreigners
Those w. no bias not show preference
Study: Prejudice Meta-Analysis (Fuertes et al., 2012)
A: Analysis of matched guise technique
R: Large effect size
Especially when judgement on competence
A: Explanation
Many show similar results
Most old & not fit today's standards of stats
Prejudice Getting Better
Reduction in explicit prejudice over years
Even if less so for accents
Summary
Bias against people who speak foreign language
Appears early in childhood
May be stronger than racial bias
Not enough to reduce explicit bias
Implicit bias
Automatic & outside awareness
Might conflict w explicit attitudes
Fed by wide-spread stereotypes in society
Predictive of behaviour
Has stronger influence in ambiguous cases
Expectations
Patterns
To interpret incoming input rely on context & knowledge about patterns in world
Study: Expectations (Rubin, 1992)
A: Accent ratings based on native/non-native picture w. native accent
M: P hear lecture & receive picture of lecturing TA & test cloze task & speaker rating
R: Ratings depend on picture
Asian woman had speech rating as less intelligible & more foreign-accented
Ps shown Asian woman performed less well on cloze task
A: Picture
Native picture of a white woman
Non-native picture of an Asian woman
Speaker always a native speaker of American English
R: Implications
Expectations can distort perceptions
Summary
Expectations influence perception
If expect to hear accent may hear even when not there
Expectations can be self-fulfilling
Influence behaviour & induce expected behaviour
Having negative stereotype may bring it into existence
Study: Expectations into Reality (Snyder et al., 1977)
A: Rate person talk to
M: Rate speaker w picture & rate speaker w/out picture
R:
A: Picture
Attractive/non-attractive
Native/non-native
R:
By expecting someone to be more friendly talk to them in way that elicit more friendliness
Processing Fluency
Availability Heuristic
Infer from ease of processing about a stimulus properties
Which more common
Words that starts w. 'k'
Words that 3rd letter is 'k'
Misattribution of Processing Fluency
Relative ease of processing misattributed
Study: Misattributing to Clarity (Whittlesea et al., 1990)
Misattributing to Duration (Masson & Caldwell, 1998)
Misattributing to Loudness (Jacoby et al., 1988)
Misattributing to Previous Exposure (Whittlesea et al., 1990)
Misattributing to Fame (Jacoby et al., 1989)
Misattributing to Liking (Reber et al., 2004)
Misattributing to Aesthetic Quality (Reber et al., 2004)
Misattributing to Moral Acceptability (Laham et al., 2009)
Misattributing to Safety (Song & Schwarz, 2009)
Study: Misattributing to Truthfulness (Reber & Schwarz, 1999)
M: True/False statement
Processing
Accented speech harder to process
Takes more effort
Slower to process
Less accurate
Mitigating Bias
Experience reduce difficulty
More listen to speaker the easier to understand them
Exposure to several speakers of foreign accent makes easier to understand new speaker w. accent/similar accent
Study: Belief in Information (Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010)
A: Rate truth in native/non-native speakers
M: Knowledge assessment, Ps record facts for future participants before listening to previous participants
R: Ps rate accented speech as less truthful
A: Speakers
Native speakers
Mild & heavily accented non-native speakers
German
Italian
Korean
Polish
Turkish
M: Assessment
Experiment on intuition of little known trivia facts
Study: Stereotypes (Dragojevic & Dayton, 2025)
A: Rating speakers of non-native speakers on same paragraph
P: 297 native speakers of American English
M: Ps rate speakers on planes & stereotype measured by averaging across P rating per accent of competence & warmth
R: Stereotypes predicted ratings
Ratings of ease of understanding predicted competence & warmth ratings even after controlling for stereotypes
Effect of ease of understanding twice as strong of stereotypes
A: Speakers
French
Hindi
Mandarin
Russian
Vietnamese
M: Ratings
Competence
Warmth
Ease of understanding
Study: Exposure (Budoch-Grabka & Lev-Ari, 2021)
A: Truth ratings for native/non-native speaker
M: Exposure to story by native/non-native speaker & truth judgement of trivia sentences & accent comprehension test
R: Ps believed trivia statement when delived in native accent & Ps exposed to non-native accent improved comprehension
But exposure to non-native accent reduced bias
Mediated effect of accent exposure on truth judgement
A: Speaker
Native British English accent
Non-native Polish accent
Summary
Foreign-accented speech harder to process than native accented speech
Relative difficulty of processing leads people to believe information less if delivered in foreign accent
Experience of interaction w. non-native speakers can help reduce
Especially of similar accents
Creating diverse environments can reduce bias & prejudice
Emotion in Second Language
Reduced Emotion
Bilinguals less emotional in their second language
Rate emotional & taboo words as less emotional
Exhibit reduced physiological reactions to taboo & other emotional words
Study: Less Emotion
Rate words
Physiological reactions
Study: Rate Words
Emotional words
Taboo words
Study: Rate Taboo Words (Dewaele, 2004)
Study: Rate Emotional Words (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçegi-Dinn, 2009)
Study: Physiological reactions
Galvanic skin conductance
Pupil dilation
Study: Galvanic Skin Conductance (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçegi-Dinn, 2009)
R: Reduced
Study: Pupil Dilation (Yao et al., 2023)
R: Reduced
Explanation
Second language often learned in classroom setting
Not used in emotional contexts so not associated w. them
Age of acquisition
Proficiency
Study: Proficient Immersed Bilinguals
R: Show smaller effects
Decision Making
Decisions often influenced by emotion
Study: Loss Aversion (Keysar et al., 2012)
A: Loss aversion in bilinguals
P: Korean learners of English
M: Bet of winning/losing in native or learned langauge
R: Sig difference in bet size between languages regardless of stakes
Larger bet size in learned langauge
Bets
High-stakes emotional
50% chance winning £111 & 50% chance losing £78
Low-stakes non-emotional
50% chance winning £0.33, 50% chance losing £0.13
R: Implication
Greater loss aversion in own language
Greater rationality in learned language
Study: Disgust (Geipel et al., 2018)
A: Willingness to engage in behaviours
P: German-English, Italian-English, Italian-German
M: Asked in native/learned language
R: Sig diff in willingness when asked in native/learned language
Less likely to say yes in native than foreign language
Mixed response to say unsure in native and foreign language
More likely to say no in native than foreign language
A: Behaviours
Willing to eat artificial meat
Willing to drink safe recycled water
Willing to eat cookies made of insects
Study: Moral Judgements (Woumans et al., 2020)
A: Judgements of severity
P: 558 Dutch-English residing in Belgium
M: Reports of real murders presented in native/non-native language & rate severity
R: Murders rated sig more severe in native language
Summary
Social interactions influenced by myriad social & cognitive factors
Explicit & implicit prejudice
Expectations
Processing fluency
Language background
Many factors outside awareness
Can influence behaviour & impression of situation
Awareness & experience can sometimes help mitigate influence of some of factors
But only partial & initial steps