See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230162703

A meta‐analysis of the effects of speakers' accents on interpersonal

evaluations

Article  in  European Journal of Social Psychology · February 2012

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.862

CITATIONS READS

168 2,411

5 authors, including:

Jairo N. Fuertes William Gottdiener

Adelphi University City University of New York - John Jay College of Criminal Justice
74 PUBLICATIONS   2,493 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   1,010 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Howard NOTE: SCOtton is not the co-author Giles

University of California, Santa Barbara
406 PUBLICATIONS   19,516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluating factors underlying schizoid detachment View project

communication accommodation theory, language attitudes, comm & aging, police-community relations, intergroup comm & dance...and dress styles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Howard NOTE: SCOtton is not the co-author Giles on 10 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
Published online 26 October 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.862

Research article
A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations

JAIRO N. FUERTES1*, WILLIAM H. GOTTDIENER2,3, HELENA MARTIN4, TRACEY C. GILBERT 5 AND

HOWARD GILES6
1
Adelphi University, Garden City, USA; 2John Jay College, City University of New York, New York, USA;
3
St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Medical Center, New York, USA; 4University of Maryland, College Park, USA; 5Fordham
University, New York, USA; 6University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

Abstract

This paper reports a meta-analysis of the empirical literature on the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations.
Our review of the published literature uncovered 20 studies that have compared the effects of standard accents (i.e., the accepted
accent of the majority population) versus non-standard accents (i.e., accents that are considered foreign or spoken by minorities)
on evaluations about the speakers. These 20 studies yielded 116 independent effect sizes on an array of characteristics that were
selected by the original researchers. We classified each of the characteristics as belonging to one of three domains that have been
traditionally discussed in this area, namely status (e.g., intelligence, social class), solidarity (trustworthiness, in-group–out-group
member), and dynamism (level of activity and liveliness). The effect was particularly strong when American Network accented
speakers were compared with non–standard-accented speakers. These results underscore prior research showing that speakers’
accents have powerful effects on how others perceive them. These and other results are discussed in the context of the literature
along with implications for future research in this area. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Communication is power (Ng & Bradac, 1993); the reader
may have heard this adage at some point. Decoding language
varieties is essential to listeners forming impressions of speakers,
and listeners use a plethora of vocal features, such as pitch, into-
nation, and speech rate in assessing speakers’ backgrounds,
characters, and personalities (Bradac, 1990; Scherer & Giles,
1979). The present report is a meta-analysis of studies that have
examined variations in speech accents and their effect on
interpersonal evaluations. Research pertaining to this topic has
traditionally compared the effects of standard accents (i.e., the
accepted accent of the majority population) versus non-standard
accents (i.e., accents that are considered foreign or spoken by
minorities) on evaluations about the speakers (Cargile & Bradac,
2001; Giles & Powesland, 1975; Ryan & Giles, 1982). In the
current meta-analysis, we identified the statistics published in
20 studies and computed 116 independent effect sizes. We also
classified each as belonging to one of three domains that have
been traditionally investigated in this area (see Giles, 1970; Giles
& Billings, 2004).
Background and Rationale
Although invoking heated debate over the years in socio-
linguistic circles (e.g., Garrett, Coupland, & Williams, 2003;
Giles & Bourhis, 1973), experimental procedures have typi-
cally been adopted—particularly the matched-guise technique
(Lambert, 1967)—in manipulating accent use by the same
bi-dialectal speakers for control purposes. A simplistic, yet
representative study using the matched-guise technique can be
found in the literature is as follows. A group of participants
are randomly assigned to watch a videotape of someone speak-
ing. Participants in the experimental group watch a videotape of
a person speaking with a non-standard accent. Participants in
the control group watch a videotape of a person speaking with
a standard accent. The persons in the videotape are matched
on various characteristics including gender, race, age, etc. After
watching their respective videotapes, the participants then
complete a series of questionnaires that measure the constructs
of solidarity, status, and/or dynamism.
Beyond personality judgments, variations in language use
have also been shown to affect compliance-gaining, social
decision making, and others’ behavioral reactions (e.g., coop-
erativeness) toward accented speakers (for a review, see Giles
& Billings, 2004). Social evaluations are triggered by the
speaker’s use of language, and the listener uses as a reference
the normative and dominant accent in the country in which the
communication takes place. Evidence of the power of verbal
cues in shaping perceptions and evaluations of speakers has
been documented, for example, Krauss, Freyberg, and

*Correspondence to: Jairo N. Fuertes, PhD, ABPP, The Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, Hy Weinberg Center-Rm 319
158 Cambridge Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530, USA.
E-mail: Jfuertes@adelphi.edu

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 23 April 2010, Accepted 21 September 2011

Morsella (2002) showed that listeners can distil personal
information about speakers based on their recorded speech,
even their physical characteristics, such as age and height.
In this study, we examine the extant research conducted
thus far on speech accents effects, which represent variations
in the pronunciation of the same language. As mentioned
earlier, the standard accent is generally considered that which
is spoken by the majority of the population and/or is associated
with high socioeconomic status, power, and use in the media
in any given country (Giles & Billings, 2004). The evaluation
made by the listener is not only about the accent itself, for
example, in terms of its aesthetics (see Giles & Niedzieksi,
1998), but is used as an immediate marker by the listener to
evaluate the person who is speaking and/or the social group
that is represented by an accent variety. Vocal cues can trigger
idiosyncratic personal attributions about a speaker and be
invoked by listeners to reduce interpersonal uncertainty and
guide impression management strategies toward the speaker
(Berger & Bradac, 1982). However, when it comes to speak-
ers’ accents, there is a consensus among language attitude
scholars (e.g., Giles & Ryan, 1982; Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey,
1990) that these provide the listener with an intergroup frame
for interpreting the situation, that is, more in terms of speak-
ers’ social than their personal identities (see Giles, Reid, &
Harwood, 2010; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Indeed, the initial
development of the matched-guise technique presented by
Lambert (e.g., 1967) was built on the following theoretical
premise: language features ! social categorization ! trait
attributions (see also, Robinson, 1972).
The non-standard accent is generally considered a foreign
accent or one used by a minority or lower socioeconomic
group. For example, the standard accent in the US is the one
spoken by TV news anchors and is considered a derivative
of a mid-western accent. An example of a non-standard accent
in the US would be a Spanish accent. Prior research has shown
that accents affect listeners’ perceptions of speakers along
three (variably labeled) main dimensions: status, solidarity,
and dynamism (Giles & Billings, 2004). We used these dimen-
sions to organize the current meta-analysis. Perceived status
includes evaluations about the speaker’s intelligence, compe-
tence, ambition, education, and social class. Solidarity
includes evaluations of the speaker’s similarity to the listener,
attractiveness, benevolence, and trustworthiness. Dynamism
refers to speaker’s level of activity and liveliness (see Giles
& Billings, 2004; Mulac, Hanley, & Prigge, 1974; Zahn &
Hopper, 1985).
Standard accents, such as Standard British English (i.e.,
also called the “Queen’s accent,” “BBC accent,” and in the
literature “Received Pronunciation accent” or RP), Standard
American Network, Parisian French, and Castillian Spanish,
have been shown to positively affect listeners’ evaluations of
speakers’ education, success, social status, attractiveness,
personality, and the similarity with the listener (e.g., Giles,
1970; Giles & Sassoon, 1983; Stewart & Ryan, 1985). They
have also been shown to affect listeners’ recall and compre-
hension of content, even when speech is intelligible (Ryan &
Sebastian, 1980). In the US and other English-speaking
countries, accents have been shown to stimulate stereotypes
and instigate discriminatory behavior against accented speak-
ers (Ryan, Giles, & Sebastian, 1982). These behaviors have
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Effects of speakers’ accents 121
been documented in various settings such as work, school,
housing, medical, counseling, and legal contexts (Lippi-Green,
1997; Ryan & Giles, 1982). For example, Blair and Connor
(1978) examined the relationship between employers’ percep-
tions of speech style and evaluations of job competence.
Results indicated that African-Americans speaking “Black
English” were rated 17%–28% lower on perceived job compe-
tence than “standard-accented” Black individuals, and 24%–39%
lower than Whites who spoke with a standard accent. Thus,
use of a non-standard accent negatively affect employee evalua-
tions and contribute to decisions that are discriminatory and
possibly even illegal.
Yet at the same time, some studies have shown non-standard
accents (such as Appalachian English and regional varieties
of British English) to have “covert prestige” (Trudgill, 1974)
in that, on occasion, speakers with these accents have been
upgraded on solidarity traits and in-group cohesion (e.g.,
Marlow & Giles, 2008). In addition, studies have demonstrated
that the social context (e.g., informal versus formal situations)
in which accent use is adopted has also been shown to
affect social evaluations; for instance, speakers of standard
accented varieties are often perceived as socially less
appealing when talking about casual topics in informal
settings (Ryan, 1979).
There is a long-standing literature showing that others’
voices are potent cues for listeners to socially categorize,
stereotype, and form impressions of speakers (e.g., Ko,
Judd, & Stapel, 2009; Krauss et al., 2002; Scherer, 1979).
Of all the vocal cues investigated (e.g., pitch and speech
rate), accents have received, arguably, the most empirical at-
tention and been accorded perhaps the most applied social
significance across cultures. It has been found that many
children are already sensitive to dialectal variations by the
age of 5 months (Nazzi, Jusczyk, & Johnson, 2000) and that,
other speakers’ accents are evaluated more saliently, even
than their perceived race, by 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds
(Kinzler, Dupoux, & Spelke, 2007; Kinzler, Shutte, DeJesus,
& Spelke, 2009). Referring to their own empirical work with
adults, Rakić, Steffens, and Mummendey (2011) found that
ethnic categorization is influenced substantially by speech
accents and that subjects can categorize accurately the eth-
nicity of speakers on the basis of accent alone, even when
they are presented with discordant visual stimuli about the
ethnicity of the speakers. Rakić et al (2011) noted that
“it was rather irrelevant for participants what targets looked
like; it mainly mattered whether they were speaking with
an accent or not. In this case it was almost as if partici-
pants became blind to the visual category information in the
presence of more meaningful auditory category information
(p. 24)”.
A considerable portion of experimental work on social
evaluations of accents has been devoted to the interdependent
variable dimension, speaker’s standard–non-standardness (see
Ryan et al., 1982; for a discussion of standard–non-standard
distinctions, see Edwards and Jacobsen, 1987, and for differ-
ent standards evolving in different contexts, see Kristiansen,
2001). Generally, standard accents grant people access to
political, economic, and educational forums and opportunities,
whereas non-standard accents impart stigma upon speakers of
them (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b).
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
122 Jairo N. Fuertes et al.
The early work conducted by Lambert (1967) invoked the
dependent variables of competence (or status) on the one hand
and solidarity (or social attractiveness) on the other for judging
speakers on audiotape. For many years, researchers adopted
these rating dimensions as really the only bases of social
judgment (see, however, Bourhis, Giles, & Tajfel, 1973).
Later, and with the aim of determining which socially
evaluative dimensions were predominant, Zahn and Hopper
(1985) conducted a comprehensive language attitudes study
involving virtually all the rating scales used in prior research.
Although they confirmed the competence–solidarity division—
which can now, arguably, be seen as a precursor to the
competence versus warmth dichotomy inherent in the stereotype
content model (see Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008, and Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), they established a third orthogonal
dimension, namely dynamism (see also Mulac, 1975; Mulac
et al., 1974) that has also been featured somewhat in more
recent work.
Research using the matched-guise technique has found that
non-standard language varieties are evaluated less favorably
than their standard counterparts on competence (e.g., intelli-
gence, ambition, confidence) as well as dynamism (e.g., lively,
enthusiastic, talkative) traits (for overviews, see Giles &
Billings, 2004; Giles & Edwards, 2010; Lippi-Green, 1997).
Indeed, the stronger or broader the perceived non-standard
accent, the more negative the social evaluations (Gluszek,
Newheiser, & Dovidio, 2011; Ryan, Carranza, & Moffie,
1977) that ensue, with the perceived quality of the message
content and its comprehensibility being downgraded as well
(Giles, 1973a; Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b). On the contrary,
non-standard speakers have been upgraded, albeit not always
consistently, on solidarity traits (e.g., social attractiveness,
benevolence).
Although individual studies in a variety of nations provide
evidence that accents affect a wide variety of interpersonal and
intergroup attitudes and behaviors, stronger evidence of such
an effect can be accomplished by conducting a meta-analysis
across studies (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). A meta-analysis
is a statistical review of the literature in which a researcher
reviews all, or a sample, of the research in the area of interest
and then computes standardized statistics, called effect sizes (a
measure of how strong the relation is between two variables)
from the studies. A meta-analysis of studies examining the
effects of accents on interpersonal evaluations is needed now
for several reasons. First, a meta-analysis will allows us to
quantitatively determine if speakers’ accent affects listener
evaluations across the extant empirical literature on this topic.
Second, a meta-analysis will enable us to determine to what
degree speaker accents affects listener evaluations. Third, a
meta-analysis might resolve conflicting findings that exist
across the empirical literature (e.g., if status and solidarity
ratings are equally affected by non-standard accents). Fourth
and finally, a meta-analysis will help determine if there are
variables that moderate the effects of speakers’ accents on
listeners’ evaluations (e.g., the experimental social setting
examined by the researchers). None of these are possible to
do with a qualitative review of the literature.
The use of multiple published studies from across a wide
span of years, journals, and disciplines will then provide
standardized data about the direction and strength of the
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
effects of accents in interpersonal evaluations. This is a
pertinent issue given the lack of attention afforded to accents
in academic reviews of interpersonal communication and
impression formation where, at best, the topic is given
short-shrift. Despite the 40 years or so of cross-discipline work
on this topic, a mere perusal of the indexes of recent
Handbooks and Encyclopedias in social psychology (e.g.,
Craighead & Nemeroff, 2004; Hogg & Cooper, 2003) and
communication science (Burleson & Greene, 2003; Donsbach,
2008; Sanders & Fitch, 2004; Ventola & Antos, 2008) show
little evidence of interest in this topic. Inexplicably, neither
the Handbook of Social Psychology (Delamater, 2003) or the
Handbook of Nonverbal Behavior (Manusov & Patterson,
2006) index this topic, nor do recent monographs on the
sociopsychological facets of language usage (e.g., Holtgraves,
2002; Robinson, 2003).
The potential impact of the findings from this meta-analysis
cannot be undervalued. If communication is power, then how
a person speaks and to whom that person is speaking can have
considerable implications for almost all interpersonal engage-
ment from teacher–student dyads, to interactions between
physicians and patients, and politicians and their constituents.
Hypotheses
The first hypothesis of the current meta-analysis was that there
would be significant differences in ratings of speakers across
the three dimensions combined, with standard-accented speakers
being rated significantly higher than non–standard-accented
speakers. The second hypothesis follows from the first hypothe-
sis but is more specific and was that standard-accented speakers
would be rated significantly higher than the non–standard-
accented speakers on each of the three dimensions of status,
solidarity, and dynamism. The third hypothesis is that the RP
standard accent would be rated higher than the American
standard accent when compared against non-standard accents.
Two additional questions that were exploratory in nature but
not sufficiently clear to warrant hypotheses were about the
differences in ratings of standard versus non-standard accents
as a function of setting (i.e., the different settings studied by
researchers) and the country where the study took place. By
settings we mean experimental conditions such as education,
employment, sales, and job interviews, and the countries in
which the studies were conducted included the United States,
Australia, Argentina, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
METHOD
Literature Search
The goal of the literature search was to identify all relevant
studies on how accents affect interpersonal evaluations and
include those with statistics that could yield an effect size.
The studies came from a wide variety of subject areas and
databases. Computer databases in the areas of business and
economics, communication, education, medicine and health,
psychology, sociology, and social work produced relevant
articles for the current meta-analysis. Specifically, the
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)

following subject databases were used: Business Source
Premier, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Communi-
cation Abstracts, Educational Abstracts, Educational Resources
Information Center, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition,
PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Social Science Citation Index,
Sociological Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts. Large
general collections and scholarly journal collections including
Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and LEXIS-NEXIS were
also searched. Key words and phrases used to identify the subject
of interest and population of interest (that being English-
speaking individuals) were English accent(s) or dialect(s). Fur-
ther narrowing key words or phrases used to identify studies
pertaining to interpersonal judgments were evaluation(s) and
its derivatives (e.g., attitude, reactions, social class, social attrac-
tiveness, perceptions, judgments, competence, solidarity). In
addition, the subcategory of comprehension and its derivatives
(e.g., learning and teaching) were also searched in certain
databases. The references for some obtained journal articles
were also reviewed to identify studies fitting our criterion for
selection or inclusion. Whenever possible, hand searches of
the journals that frequently published accent studies were also
conducted. Furthermore, the extensive bibliographic lists from
certain language, sociolinguistic, and communication books
were searched.
Inclusion Criteria
Each of the studies included in this meta-analysis had to meet
certain inclusion criteria. The first criterion is that the study
had to address accented English. We chose the English lan-
guage studies for several reasons. First, English is the primary
language of the current team of researchers. Second, despite
the historical duration of interest in the effects of speech accents
on interpersonal perceptions, the total population of studies that
exists is approximately 153, and almost all scholarly work that
has been conducted on this topic has been conducted in English.
And third, a potential problem arises when integrating studies
with other languages. Language is strongly linked with culture,
and if we were to test our hypotheses using studies conducted
with other languages, then cultural differences might add a
problematic confound in interpreting the findings. The second
criterion was that the study must include statistical information
sufficient to compute an effect size (e.g., means, standard devia-
tions, group sizes, F values, t values, r values).
Coding Procedure
Following the guidelines published by Lipsey and Wilson
(2001), a coding manual (see Appendix A that contains sam-
ple items) was created that included information from each
study and that was entered into a database. Samples of the
characteristics rated in each study are presented in Table 1,
along with our classification of each as being a status, soli-
darity, or dynamism dimension. In our classification process
of grouping characteristics into one of three dimensions, we
were led by Howard Giles in making a first categorization,
given his extensive experience in this area of research. How-
ever, the first and third authors examined his categorization
independently and made minor modifications to which the
three authors agreed.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Effects of speakers’ accents 123
Two independent graduate students were trained as raters to
collect and code the studies. To reduce the potential for human
error, the two raters compared the data obtained after every
five studies were coded. Inter-rater agreement was achieved
via consensus discussion. At each interval, the coding results
were compared, and very few errors were identified, and they
were corrected during this process.
Effect Sizes
Cohen’s d was the statistic used to compute effect sizes in the
current study, and it is the difference in means between groups
when the difference is divided by the pooled standard
deviation of the groups (Cohen, 1988). Cohen (1988, p. 9–10)
defines an effect size as “the degree to which the phenomenon
is present in the population,” or “the degree to which the null
hypothesis is false. . . .the null hypothesis always means that
the effect size is zero.” We calculated effect sizes in the standard
manner directly using descriptive statistics or indirectly from
omnibus statistical tests or p values when a report did not
contain sufficient descriptive statistical information to calculate
effect sizes directly. The d statistic can be derived algebraically
from omnibus statistics and p values. Sometimes results were
reported as simply being non-significant. Following Cooper
(1989), we coded these statistics to have effect sizes of zero.
Inexact p values such as p < 0.01 were reported at the next
lowest value (e.g., p = 0.009).
Cohen (1988) defined effects sizes (d statistic) as small if
they are below 0.2 (or below a 58th percentile standing),
medium if they are between 0.2 and 0.7 (0.7 would indicate
a 76th percentile standing), and large if they are above 0.8
(or above the 79th percentile). The percentile standing refers
to differences between the groups. For example, an effect size
of 0.0 would indicate absolutely no differences between
groups A and B and that the distribution of their scores is
identical (meaning that the bell-shaped distributions of the
scores for groups A and B have 100% overlap and have the
same mean). An effect size of 0.8 indicates that the mean of
group A is at the 79th percentile of group B (whose normal
distribution would have a mean at the 50th percentile), and
there is only 53% overlap in the distribution of scores. An
effect size of 1.0 indicates that the mean of group A is at the
84th percentile of group B, and there is less than 45% overlap
in the distribution of scores for groups A and B.
The higher the percentile for group A, the more powerful
the mean differences between it and group B and the lower
the overlap in distribution of scores for groups A and B.
Thus, more weight can be given to whatever factor is con-
tributing to the higher mean score for group A. In the current
study, a higher effect size indicates the extent to which
standard accent is preferred along the dimensions on which it
is rated, in comparison with ratings on the same dimensions
for non-standard accents. In other words, positive effect sizes
indicate that the standard accent was preferred by listeners
and negative effect sizes indicate that the non-standard accent
was preferred by listeners.
Most research is multivariate, and this creates potential
problems of maintaining independence across effect sizes in
a meta-analysis. We were interested in three potential
outcomes—solidarity, status, and dynamism—which have
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
 Table 1. Individual Effects Sizes by Characteristic
124
Non-standard
Authors & country Characteristics rated d Significance level Context Dimension accent Standard accent
Arthur et al., 1974 USA Carefree-ambitious 0.79 0.00 No context Solidarity “Chicano English” “Standard English”
Arthur et al., 1974 Dependable–unreliable R 0.88 0.00 No context Solidarity
Arthur et al., 1974 Dishonest–honest 0.84 0.00 No context Solidarity
Arthur et al., 1974 Educated–uneducated R 1.89 0.00 No context Status
Arthur et al., 1974 Friendly–hostile R 0.44 0.04 No context Dynamism
Arthur et al., 1974 Hardworking–lazy R 0.71 0.00 No context Dynamism
Jairo N. Fuertes et al.

Arthur et al., 1974 Hi self-image–lo self-image R 1.56 0.00 No context Solidarity

Arthur et al., 1974 Intelligent–stupid R 1.52 0.00 No context Status
Arthur et al., 1974 Openminded–narrowminded R 1.13 0.00 No context Solidarity

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Arthur et al., 1974 Out of it–with it 1.51 0.00 No context Solidarity
Arthur et al., 1974 Quiet–talkative 0.28 0.18 No context Dynamism
Arthur et al., 1974 Serious–fun R 0.60 0.00 No context Solidarity
Arthur et al., 1974 Strong–gentle R 0.56 0.01 No context Dynamism –
Arthur et al., 1974 Untalented–gifted 1.27 0.00 No context Status
Arthur et al., 1974 Working class–upper class 1.92 0.00 No context Status
Brown et al., 1985 UK Active–passive 0.29 0.05 Education Dynamism “South East Welsh” “Standard British Accent”
Brown et al., 1985 Ambitious–unambitious 0.52 0.00 Education Status
Brown et al., 1985 Good looking–plain 0.40 0.01 Education Status
Brown et al., 1985 Happy–sad 0.31 0.03 Education Solidarity
Brown et al., 1985 Intelligent–not intelligent 0.45 0.00 Education Status
Brown et al., 1985 Just–unjust 0.34 0.02 Education Solidarity
Brown et al., 1985 Religious–unreligious 0.40 0.01 Education Status
Callan et al., 1983 Australia Solidarity 0.00 1.00 no context Solidarity “Greek-Australian” “Anglo-Australian”
Callan et al., 1983 Status 0.85 0.00 no context Status
Cargile & Giles, 1998 USA Attractiveness 0.36 0.00 Education Status “Moderate Japanese” “Standard American”
Fuertes & Gelso, 2000 USA Counselor rating 0.02 0.90 Counseling Status “Spanish” “Standard American”
Fuertes & Gelso, 2000 Willingness 0.20 0.18 Counseling Solidarity
Fuertes & Gelso, 2000 Working alliance 0.13 0.37 Counseling Solidarity
Gallois et al., 1984 Australia Solidarity 0.00 1.00 no context Solidarity “Aboriginal” “White Accent Speakers”
Gallois et al., 1984 Status 0.45 0.00 no context Status
Giles et al., 1975 UK Intelligent–dull 0.87 0.00 Employment Status “Birmingham” “RP”
Giles et al., 1995 USA Attractiveness 0.00 1.00 Education Status “Hispanic accent” “Anglo American”
Giles et al., 1995 Dynamism 0.00 1.00 Education Dynamism
Giles et al., 1995 Superiority 0.61 0.00 Education Status
Giles et al., 1981 UK Aggressiveness 0.81 0.03 Employment Dynamism “South Welsh” “RP”
Giles et al., 1981 Generosity 0.90 0.02 Employment Solidarity
Giles et al., 1981 Good naturedness 1.21 0.00 Employment Solidarity
Giles et al., 1981 Intelligence 0.69 0.07 Employment Status
Giles et al., 1981 Kind heartedness 0.73 0.05 Employment Solidarity
Giles et al., 1981 Self-assurance 0.58 0.12 Employment Solidarity
Giles et al., 1981 Sincerity 1.06 0.01 Employment Solidarity
Giles et al., 1981 Social status 0.90 0.02 Employment Status
Gill, 1994 USA Aesthetic 0.52 0.05 Education Status “Malaysian” “Standard North American English”

(Continues)

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)

 Table 1. (Continued )
Non-standard
Authors & country Characteristics rated d Significance level Context Dimension accent Standard accent
Gill, 1994 Dynamism 0.52 0.05 Education Dynamism
Gill, 1994 Sociointellectual 0.52 0.05 Education Status
Gill & Badzinski, 1992 USA Favorable rating 0.68 0.01 Education Solidarity “Egypt/Australian” “American”
Green, Scott, Argentina Ranking 1.34 0.00 no context Status “Estuary” “RP English”
vs& Rosewarne, 2002
Hensley, 1972 USA Ambition 1.08 0.00 no context Status “Non-standard Negro “Standard English”
English”
Hensley, 1972 Considerate of others 1.15 0.00 no context Solidarity
Hensley, 1972 Easy going 0.67 0.00 no context Solidarity

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hensley, 1972 Friendly 1.10 0.00 no context Dynamism
Hensley, 1972 Good looking 0.82 0.00 no context Status
Hensley, 1972 Happy 0.52 0.00 no context Solidarity
Hensley, 1972 Hardworking 1.25 0.00 no context Dynamism
Hensley, 1972 Honest 1.23 0.00 no context Solidarity
Hensley, 1972 Intelligent 1.63 0.00 no context Status
Hensley, 1972 Loyal 1.26 0.00 no context Solidarity
Hensley, 1972 Lucky 0.97 0.00 no context Solidarity
Hensley, 1972 Things in common 0.40 0.01 no context Solidarity
Hensley, 1972 Unselfish 0.67 0.00 no context Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Turkey Ambitious–laissez fare R 0.71 0.00 Employment Status “African-American “Eastern American English”
English”
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Determined–unsure R 1.16 0.00 Employment Status
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Dishonest–honest 0.66 0.00 Employment Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Entertaining–boring R 0.70 0.00 Employment Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Industrious–lazy R 0.96 0.00 Employment Dynamism
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Intelligent–dull R 0.70 0.00 Employment Status
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Irritable–good natured 0.40 0.03 Employment Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Kindhearted–cold hearted R 0.79 0.00 Employment Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Self-confident–shy R 0.97 0.00 Employment Dynamism
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Sociable–unsociable R 1.00 0.00 Employment Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Talkative–restrained R 0.97 0.00 Employment Dynamism
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Unpopular–popular 0.69 0.00 Employment Solidarity
Kamisli & Dugan, 1997 Unreliable–reliable 0.40 0.04 Employment Solidarity
Levin et al., 1994 UK Ambitious 0.78 0.00 No context Status “Mild South East “RP”
Welsh”
Levin et al., 1994 Colloquial 1.43 0.00 No context Status
Levin et al., 1994 Difficult to understand 0.69 0.00 No context Status
Levin et al., 1994 Dominant 0.54 0.01 No context Status
Levin et al., 1994 Easy to listen to 0.57 0.01 No context Solidarity
Levin et al., 1994 Formal 1.26 0.00 No context Status
Levin et al., 1994 Intelligent 1.20 0.00 No context Status
Levin et al., 1994 Less relaxed 0.49 0.02 No context Solidarity
Levin et al., 1994 Long words 1.02 0.00 No context Status
Effects of speakers’ accents

(Continues)
125

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)

 126

Table 1. (Continued )
Non-standard
Authors & country Characteristics rated d Significance level Context Dimension accent Standard accent

Levin et al., 1994 Pay attention 0.84 0.00 No context Solidarity

Jairo N. Fuertes et al.

Levin et al., 1994 Source of advice 0.51 0.01 No context Solidarity

Levin et al., 1994 Speech formal 1.02 0.00 No context Status
Levin et al., 1994 Tried to impress 0.57 0.01 No context Status

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Levin et al., 1994 Words fancy 0.53 0.01 No context Status
Light et al., 1978 USA Appearance: pretty–ugly 1.39 0.00 Education Status “Black Southern” “Standard American Accent”
Light et al., 1978 Socioeconomic status: rich–poor 0.87 0.00 Education Status
Light et al., 1978 Intelligence: dumb–smart 0.42 0.05 Education Status
Light et al., 1978 Personality: nice–mean 0.39 0.07 Education Solidarity
Lindemann, 2003 USA Solidarity 0.00 0.99 No context Solidarity “Korean” “North Midwestern US English”
Lindemann, 2003 Status 0.95 0.00 No context Status
Piche et al., 1977 USA Scholastic achievement 0.41 0.10 Education Status “Black non-standard “White Standard English”
English”
Powesland & Giles, 1975 UK Sincerity 0.67 0.00 Other Solidarity “Bristol” “RP”
Powesland & Giles, 1975 Social class 3.67 0.00 Other Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 USA Buy from him 1.74 0.00 Sales Solidarity “Greek-accented English” “American”
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Cheerful 1.81 0.00 Sales Dynamism
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Clear 2.26 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Competent 1.66 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Convincing 1.79 0.00 Sales Dynamism
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Credible 1.55 0.00 Sales Solidarity
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Dependable 1.39 0.00 Sales Solidarity
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Effectiveness 1.77 0.00 Sales Dynamism
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Friendly 1.33 0.00 Sales Dynamism
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Helpful 1.04 0.00 Sales Solidarity
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Honesty 1.22 0.00 Sales Solidarity
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Humble 0.50 0.00 Sales Solidarity
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Image to product 1.99 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Image to store 2.16 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Intelligent 1.47 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Knowledgeable 1.50 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Professional 1.67 0.00 Sales Status
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Recommend 1.77 0.00 Sales Solidarity
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Self-confident 1.73 0.00 Sales Dynamism
Tsalikis et al., 1991 Status 1.53 0.00 Sales Status

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)


been measured in numerous ways across the extant body of
literature. In addition, there is no one clearly defined method
of distinguishing these three concepts psychometrically. As a
result, we decided to include effect sizes of all measures of
these concepts in the meta-analysis. Each effect size that was
calculated for each of these concepts in a given study was used
to obtain a mean effect size that represented the outcomes of a
given study. Hence, each study contributed one and only one
effect size to the meta-analysis, thus, enabling us to maintain
independence of effect across studies.
We used the software “Comprehensive Meta-analysis—
Version 2” (Biostat, 2000) to calculate effect sizes and to
calculate our meta-analysis statistical tests. We employed a
random effects model because the data from the primary
studies that we retrieved could not be assumed to come from
the same population because studies were conducted in differ-
ent geographical locations and accents vary enough across
study sites (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009;
Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
In all, 153 studies were identified as having discussed or
examined speech effects or accents (this list is available from
the first author). A review of these reports then indicated that
approximately 70 articles were research studies in which data
were analyzed and included in the publication, therefore poten-
tially representing sources for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
A subsequent evaluation of the 70 articles indicated that only
20 articles provided the statistics necessary to calculate effect
sizes. From the 20 independent studies included for synthesis
in this meta-analysis, we were able to compute 116 indepen-
dent effect sizes. These studies included a total of 1738 partici-
pants: 666 men and 802 women. Five of the 20 studies did not
report the gender of the participants. The 20 studies included
in the meta-analysis are identified in the reference list with
an asterisk. All used the matched-guise technique or slight
variations from the original (Lambert, 1967) (*).
Table 1 presents the 116 individual effect sizes for the 20
studies examined. The table is organized in terms of the
author(s) last name and year of publication, the characteristics
examined by the researcher(s) in the study, effect size d statistic
and level of significance, context as defined/described by the
researcher(s), dimensions of status, solidarity, or dynamism as
determined by the current team of authors, and the type of
accents that were examined.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Speakers with standard accents are rated
higher compared with speakers with non-standard accents.
We found a mean effect size of d = 0.82, n = 116, p < 0.01
(95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70–0.95). This finding
supports our hypothesis and indicates that speakers with
standard accents are rated more positively than speakers with
non-standard accents.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Effects of speakers’ accents 127
Hypothesis 2: We hypothesized that standard-accented speak-
ers would be rated higher on the dimensions of status, solidar-
ity, and dynamism than non–standard-accented speakers. We
obtained a mean effect size of d = 0.99, n = 50, p < 0.001 (95%
CI = 0.83–1.16) for status; a mean effect size of d = 0.52,
n = 48, p < 0.001 (95% CI = 0.33–0.70) for solidarity; and a
mean effect size of d = 0.86, n = 18, p < 0.001 (95% CI = 0.57–
1.16) for dynamism. These findings also support our hypothesis:
standard-accented speakers are accorded higher ratings of status,
solidarity, and dynamism than non–standard-accented speakers.
Hypothesis 3: We hypothesized that the RP accent would be
rated higher than the American accent when compared against
non-standard accents. This hypothesis was not supported, and
the reverse was found to be the case. Our results show that the
American accent has a strong effect of d = 0.94, p < 0.001
(95% CI = 0.79–1.09), whereas the RP accent had a more
moderate effect of d = 0.56, p < 0.001 (95% CI = 0.37–0.76).
Exploratory Research Questions
We explored if there would be differences in ratings of standard
versus non-standard accents in the distinct experimental settings
examined by researchers and differences in ratings in the vari-
ous countries where the research has taken place. With respect
to settings examined, the results show that standard-accented
speakers are rated significantly higher than non–standard-accented
speakers in education, employment, and sales settings. In
counseling, the mean effect size was in the direction of
favoring the standard-accent but did not reach statistical signifi-
cance. The mean effect sizes for the various settings were as
follows: counseling d = 0.12, n = 3, p < 0.17 (95% CI = 0.05
to 0.29); education d = 0.40, n = 20, p < 0.001 (95% CI = 0.25–
0.54); employment d = 0.53, n = 22, p < 0.001 (95% CI = 0.32–
0.74); and sales d = 1.59, n = 20, p < 0.001 (95% CI = 1.41–1.77).
There have been studies that have examined ratings of
English speakers in various countries and compared evaluations
of standard and non-standard accents (e.g., business executives
fluent in English were compared on the basis of standard versus
non-standard accents). The results show that standard speakers
are rated significantly higher than non–standard-accented
speakers in the United States, Argentina, Turkey, and the
United Kingdom. The results for studies conducted in Australia
were in the direction of favoring standard-accented speakers
but did not reach statistical significance. The mean effect
sizes are as follows: United States d = 1.04, n = 66, p < 0.001
(95% CI = 0.89–1.19); Argentina d = 1.34, n = 1, p < 0.001
(95% CI = 1.03–1.65); Australia d = 0.32, n = 4, p < 0.031
(95% CI = 0.31 to 0.96); Turkey d = 0.44, n = 13, p < 0.001
(95% CI = 0.6–0.82); and the United Kingdom d = 0.56, n = 32,
p < 0.001 (95% CI = 0.35–0.77).
Instances When Non-Standard Accents were Preferred
over Standard Accents
As the data above show, in almost all instances, standard-accented
speakers are preferred over non–standard-accented speakers.
But, as noted in the introduction, there are instances in which
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
128 Jairo N. Fuertes et al.
non-standard accents are preferred by listeners over standard
accents. There were seven individual negative effect sizes within
specific studies, where the non-standard accent was preferred to
the standard accent on specific outcome variables. These effect
sizes can be seen in Table 1. In two studies conducted in the
United Kingdom comparing Bristol and South Welsh accents
with RP accents, five of these seven negative effect sizes were
on the dimension of solidarity. All of these effect sizes except
one (i.e., quiet–talkative) were statistically significant. The data
that contributed to these results are scant, but we believed that
they are worth noting because they contrast with the rest of
the data and they suggest that there might be certain cultural
factors that might lead to contrary results. Specifically in these
two studies, the respondents hearing the Bristol and South
Welsh accents may have upgraded these speakers on the basis
of perceiving them as in-group versus out-group members.
Fail-Safe N
The Fail-Safe N determines how many studies exist in
researchers’ file drawers and were not found by us that would
be needed to undermine or contradict the results of this study
(Rosenthal, 1991). It is important to make sure that the results
were based on a thorough search of the literature and the
Fail-Safe N enables that possibility. The Fail-Safe N for this
study is 10 547, which means that more than 10 000 studies
would have to be found with nil results to cause the current
study’s results to become non-significant statistically.
DISCUSSION
The current study set out to examine the statistical effect of
speakers’ accents on social evaluations. In many ways, and
as highlighted previously, this enterprise was triggered by
the lack of focal attention afforded to this vocal feature in
prominent treatises in social psychology and communication
science. The first hypothesis examined the overall magnitude
of the effect of speakers’ accents on interpersonal judgments
made by the listener. The results revealed an effect size of
d = 0.82 indicating that this effect is very strong. Across rating
dimensions, speakers who use a standard accent are rated more
positively than those using a non-standard accent, almost a full
standard deviation higher. This effect may have considerable
consequences for those speakers being evaluated. For the
standard speaker, it represents a huge advantage, and for the
non-standard speaker, it represents nothing less than a consid-
erable handicap. The reader should consider the fact that
evaluations have been shown to be shaped by single words,
such as the speaker saying “hello.” The implications for
non-standard speakers are considerable, as they are much less
likely to make positive impressions, even first impressions,
when compared with standard speakers.
The effect on evaluations associated with status, such as
how educated, intelligent, or successful the speaker is, was
even higher at d = 0.99. Furthermore, the effect of ratings
associated with the speaker’s dynamism was also strong at
d = 0.86. On two important dimensions, accented speech
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
acts as an immediate marker for the listeners on which to
downgrade the non–standard-accented speaker. Although
legislation has been drafted to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of gender or race, it may be that use of language is as
powerful a trigger in instigating negative evaluations of
speakers, which may compound negative evaluations already
experienced by minority group members, those members of
society living in poverty, and citizens who speak with a
non-standard accent such as immigrants. The effect on the
third dimension examined, solidarity, was also significant,
though moderate (d = 0.52), and shows that speaking with a
standard accent very much leads to higher ratings on factors
such as attractiveness, benevolence, and trustworthiness. This
finding is consistent with our hypothesis but inconsistent with
some of the theoretical and empirical literature that has posited
and found an effect favoring non–standard-accented speakers
on the dimension of solidarity.
The study also examined the magnitude of the effects of
accents by context examined and the country in which the
study took place. With respect to context, the average result
was strong across settings, with the standard accent being rated
more favorably than non-standard accents. But the results also
show some variability of the effects, with the more formal and
high stakes settings, such as employment and sales situations,
generating the strongest effects favoring standard accents.
With respect to country, the average result was also strong
across countries, with the standard accent being rated more
favorably than non-standard accents. However, there was also
considerable variability from country to country. Studies
conducted in the US generated the highest average effect size
(the study in Argentina contained only one effect size, whereas
the studies in the US generated 66 effect sizes), which was
double the effect size for studies conducted in the UK.
Although researchers typically associate RP as the accent
generating the highest levels of prestige around the globe,
the current results show that at least in the US, the American
accent is much stronger in generating positive effects when
compared with non-standard accents. There is evidence that
shows that the American Network accent has surpassed the
RP accent as the standard in other English-speaking countries,
such as Australia (Giles & Billings, 2004).
There are applied and theoretical implications of this
meta-analysis. That people have, or rather are attributed as
having, a so-called “accent” has been a social issue and con-
cern in everyday parlance, popular culture, and in many pro-
fessional contexts for a very long time. A recent Web search
on “reactions to people’s accents,” for instance, triggered
well over four million hits. As Giles and Marlow (2011) have
argued, perhaps it is time to proactively utilize social net-
working and new communication resources to dispel and
offer remedial options for what are often speech stereotypes
with cumulatively disturbing repercussions, thereby alleviat-
ing some of the social harm inflicting on those enduring lin-
guistic insecurities. Turning to models of social interaction,
the salience of accent has relevance for models such as com-
munication accommodation theory (CAT; see, e.g., Gallois,
Ogay, & Giles, 2005; Giles, Willemyns, Gallois, & Anderson,
2007) that was originally formulated for explaining people’s
facility for changing their accents from situation to situation
(Giles, 1973b).
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)

This theory examines the motivations for and consequences
arising from individuals, couples, and groups modifying
their speech toward and away from each other. Besides the
ubiquity of underaccommodative and overaccommodative
strategies in conversation, CAT has devoted most of its em-
pirical and theoretical attentions toward understanding how
and why speakers converge and diverge away from each
other. The current meta-analysis underscores the social
rewards (e.g., increased status, education, confidence, com-
petence) for people upwardly converging toward those with
more prestige accents and upwardly diverging away from
non–standard-accented speakers. In fact, it would be interesting
to determine whether upward convergence is a more prevalent
communicative tactic than downward convergence toward low
prestige speakers. Although an increase in social attractiveness,
social identification, and sincerity might accompany the latter
in certain kinds of solidarity-stressing situations (see Giles
& Ryan, 1982), it could also reap social costs in terms of
authenticity and lowered competence.
The small number of negative effect sizes uncovered by our
results is surprising. The literature in this field has suggested
that non-standard accents might generate higher effect sizes
than standard accents, particularly when the judgments are
made by similarly accented listeners. We expected a higher
number of negative effect sizes, particularly on the dimension
of solidarity. However, the overwhelming number of effect
sizes was positive, strong, and consistent across dimension,
settings, and countries, in favor of standard-accented speakers.
This finding may have had to do with the type of subject/
participant typically included in the research studies reviewed:
educated college students who were probably standard-
accented in their use of English and who thus rated as higher
on solidarity the standard-accented speakers who sounded to
them as similar and trustworthy.
Limitations and Future Research
We acknowledge some limitations in the current study. First,
the studies that were meta-analyzed did not provide evidence
as to the accent of the evaluators. A research question that
remains and needs to be investigated is whether the effect of
non-standard speech is as strong when evaluators use the same
type of English as the speakers. This question could not be
examined on the basis of the current studies available in the
literature. Also, given the realities of racism across the world,
a potential confound that cannot be ascertained in the current
study is whether the downgrade of non-standard speech is
because of the speech itself or the extent to which it is also a
function of the race or ethnicity of the speaker or the listener
(see Ray, 2009). Another limitation pertains to sex differences
in the ratings and evaluations of accented speech. Although
the sex of the participants was noted in 15 of the studies,
ratings were not presented by sex. So, it is impossible to
discern the role of this variable in interpersonal evaluations
based on accent (see Giles, Smith, Ford, Condor, & Thakerar,
1980). Future research in the area of interpersonal evaluations
based on speakers’ accents would benefit from research stud-
ies that include detailed demographic data such as their sex,
ethnicity, race, education level, and accent.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Effects of speakers’ accents 129
Another limitation pertains to the context in which ratings
are observed. On the one hand, many of the studies are not
naturalistic but experimental or analogue in nature, and so a
question remains as to whether these evaluations would be
replicated in real-life scenarios in which communication takes
place. On the other hand, some of the contexts described in the
published studies are unclear or not at all specified. Because
much evidence exists about behavior being context dependent,
it behooves researchers to pay closer to attention to context
and to specify in the studies how the context was created or
selected. This is important to specify in studying the possible
beneficial effects of non-standard accents on solidarity ratings,
meaning settings where speaking with a non-standard accent
may trump standard accent (e.g., in settings that are casual or
recreational, such as in sports settings or a street playground).
There is also a lack of consistency in the terms used to
describe personal characteristics that are assessed. Table 1 lists
an array of dimensions, which we classified given our under-
standing of the dimensions of status, solidarity, and dynamism
as empirically derived from the work by Zahn and Hopper
(1985). Future publications would benefit from reporting the
characteristics of interest (e.g., friendliness or selfishness)
under these three dimensions along with a rationale, to provide
a common language among researchers. Alternatively,
researchers may seek to study evaluations based on personality
types that have been researched extensively in psychology,
such as the 16 personality dimensions presented by Cattell
(e.g., warmth, dominance, sensitivity; Conn & Rieke, 1994).
There are also possibilities for grounding studies on language
variability and the effects of speakers’ accents on principles of
social psychology, such as studying the effects of language on
attitude convergence, on discrepancy or conflict resolution, on
the construction of a shared social reality in relationships, and
on the development of trust among couples or groups.
Many of the studies of interest reviewed for the meta-
analysis could not be included in the present study because
of the inadequate reporting of statistics. Much of the data
included in the articles reviewed were presented as aggregated
data, and often the current research team was unable to
decipher statistics for specific groups or demographic variables
of interest. A more thorough reporting of statistics is needed to
accurately evaluate differences between the overall evalua-
tions of accent conditions, as well as differences based on
the demographic differences of the evaluators. Researchers
are also encouraged to provide the statistical data needed to
calculate effect sizes including means, standard deviations,
numbers of participants by group, significance levels, T or Z
scores, correlation coefficients, and R or F values.
We also note the paucity of available empirical research
that has been conducted on this topic in the last 10 years.
Interpersonal evaluations based on accents continue to be an
important area of study and should continue to be studied in
a variety of contexts. That being said, in different national
contexts (e.g., Denmark, The Netherlands), subjective notions
of what is the “standard” (or even optional standards) is
continually evolving (Grondelaers, van Hout, & Steegs,
2010; Kristiansen, 2001). Clearly, there is a need for more
research to explicitly document, objectively and subjectively,
the nature of changes in socioeconomic circumstances within
any given society, as well as the changing dynamic relations
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
130 Jairo N. Fuertes et al.
between ethnic and social groups within it (e.g., Bishop,
Coupland, & Garrett, 2003; Genesee & Holobrow, 1989) and
relate these to accent evaluations.
In closing, evaluations based on accent appear to have a
significant impact on individuals who do not speak with
standard accents and are likely to lead to discrimination
(Lippi-Green, 1997; Ryan & Giles, 1982; Ryan et al., 1982)
and possibly other severe social consequences. For the
accented speaker, the stigma attached to their speech can
create difficulties in communicating with others and lead to
the increased perception that the listener is biased or will
respond negatively (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010a). These
meta-perceptions related to discrimination increases when the
speaker can be visibly categorized as a minority (Derwing,
2003; Lippi-Green, 1997). In addition, as noted by Gluszek
and Dovidio (2010b), the stigma associated with accented
speech can become intertwined with social identity and result
in a decreased sense of belongingness. Thus, carefully
constructed and presented research is still needed in this
extremely important area. There are resources on the Internet
that can be used to initiate the dialogue regarding evalua-
tions/judgments/perceptions and accents in employment,
professional settings, education, and social interactions. One
such tool is the accent database that can be found at http://
accent.gmu.edu. We hope that the size of the effects uncovered
in this meta-analysis will stimulate further thinking, healthy
criticisms and debate, and further research in this area.
REFERENCES
*Arthur, B., Farrar, D., & Bradford, G. (1974). Evaluation reactions of college
students to dialect differences in the English of Mexican-Americans.
Language and Speech, 17, 255–270.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge. London:
Academic Press.
(2000). Comprehensive meta-analysis—version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Bishop, H., Coupland, N., & Garrett, P. (2003). Conceptual accent evaluation:
30 years of accent prejudice in the UK. Acta Linguistic Hefniensia, 37,
131–154.
Blair, L. M., & Connor, H. S. (1978). Black and rural accents found to lessen
job opportunities. Monthly Labor Review, 101, 35–36.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. (2009).
Introduction to meta-analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Language as a determinant of
Welsh Identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 447–460.
Bradac, J. J. (1990). Language attitudes and impression formation. In H. Giles,
& W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology
(pp. 387–412). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
*Brown, B. L., Giles, H., & Thakerar, J. N. (1985). Speaker evaluations as a
function of speech rate, accent and context. Language and Communication,
5,207–220.
Burleson, B., & Greene, J. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of communication and
social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Callan, V. J., Gallois, C., & Forbes, P. A. (1983). Evaluative reactions to
accented English. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 407–426.
Cargile, A. C., & Bradac, J. J. (2001). Attitudes toward language: A review of
research and a general process model. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Commu-
nication yearbook, 25, 347–382. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
*Cargile, A. C., & Giles, H. (1998). Language attitudes toward varieties of
English: An American-Japanese context. Journal of Applied Communica-
tion Research, 26, 338–356.
Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 12, 425–434.
Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual.
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Craighead, W. E., & Nemeroff, C. (Eds.). (2004). The concise Corsini
encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science (3rd ed.). Chichester:
Wiley & Sons.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Competence and warmth as
universal trait dimensions of interpersonal and intergroup perceptions: The
stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Delamater, J. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of social psychology. New York, NY:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Derwing, T. M. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 547–566.
Donsbach, W. (Ed.). (2008). International encyclopedia of communication.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Edwards, J. R., & Jacobsen, M. (1987). Standard and regional standard
speech: Distinctions and similarities. Language in Society, 16, 369-80.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (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, 878–902.
*Fuertes, J. N., & Gelso, C. J. (2000). Hispanic counselors’ race and accent
and Euro Americans’ Universal Diverse Orientation: A study of initial per-
ceptions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 211–219.
*Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Johnstone, M. J. (1984). Personality judgments
of Australian aborigine and white speakers: Ethnicity, sex and context.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 39–57.
Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation
theory. In W. Gundykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communi-
cation (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language
attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.
Genesee, F., & Holobow, N. E. (1989). Change and stability in intergroup
perceptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 17–38.
Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, 22,
211–227.
Giles, H. (1973a). Communicative effectiveness as a function of accented
speech. Speech Monographs, 40, 330–331.
Giles, H. (1973b). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological
Linguistics, 15, 87–105.
Giles, H., & Billings, A. (2004). Language attitudes. In A. Davies, & E. Elder
(Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 187–209). Oxford: Blackwell.
Giles H., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1973). Dialect perception revisited. The Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 59, 337–342.
Giles, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2010). Attitudes to language: Past, present, and
future. In K. Malmkjaer (Ed.), The Routledge linguistics encyclopedia
(3rd ed., pp. 35–40). London: Routledge.
Giles, H., & Marlow, M. (2011). Theorizing language attitudes: Past frame-
works, an integrative model, and new directions. In C. Salmon (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 35 (pp. 161–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giles, H., & Niedzielski, N. (1998). German sounds awful, but Italian is
beautiful. In L. Bauer, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp. 85–93).
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Giles, H., & Ryan, E. B. (1982). Prolegomena for developing a social psycho-
logical theory of language attitudes. In E. B. Ryan, & H. Giles (Eds.),
Attitudes towards language variation (pp. 208–223). London: Edward
Arnold.
Giles, H., & Sassoon, C. (1983). The effect of speaker’s accent/ social class
background and message style on British listeners’ social judgments.
Language and Communication, 3, 302–313.
*Giles, H., Baker, S., & Fielding, G. (1975). Communication length as a
behavioral index of accent prejudice. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 6, 73–81.
Giles, H., Reid, S. A., & Harwood, J. (Eds.). (2010). The dynamics of
intergroup communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Giles, H., Smith, P. M., Ford, B., Condor, S., & Thakerar, J. N. (1980). Speech
styles and the fluctuating saliency of sex. Language Sciences, 2, 260–282.
Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Accommo-
dating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In K. Fiedler (Ed.),
Social communication (pp. 129–162). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
*Giles, H., Williams, A., Mackie, D. M., & Rosselli, F. (1995). Reactions to
Anglo- and Hispanic-American-accented speakers: Affect, identity, persua-
sion, and the English-only controversy. Language and Communication, 15,
107–120.
*Giles, H., Wilson, P., & Conway, A. (1981). Accent and lexical diversity as
detriments of impression formation and perceived employment suitability.
Language Sciences, 3, 91–103.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)

*Gill, M. M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of
teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 22, 348–361.
*Gill, M. M., & Badzinski, D. M. (1992). The impact of accent and status on
information recall and perception formation. Communication Reports, 5,
99–106.
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010a). Speaking with a nonnative accent:
Perceptions of bias, communication difficulties, and belonging to the
United States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 224–234.
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010b). A social psychological perspective on
the stigma of non-native accents in communication. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14, 214–237.
Gluszek, A., Newheiser, A.-K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2011). Social psychological
orientations and accent strength. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-
ogy, 30, 28–45.
*Green, D. J., Scott, J. C., & Rosewarne, D. D. (2002). Perceptions about three
indigenous English accents from prospective and practicing Argentine
providers of business-related language services. Delta Pi Epsilon National
Conference, 65–70.
Grondelaers, S., van Hout, R., & Steegs, M. (2010). Evaluating regional accent
variation in Standard Dutch. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
29, 101–116.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1990). Ethnic identity, language
and communication breakdowns. In H. Giles, & P. Robinson (Eds.),
Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 307–327). London:
Wiley.
*Hensley, A. (1972). Black high school students’ reactions to black speakers
of standard and black English. Language Learning, 22, 253–259.
Hogg, M. A., & Cooper, J. (Eds.). (2003). The SAGE handbook of social psy-
chology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holtgraves, T. M. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and
language use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting
error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Kamisli, S., & Dugan, S. (1997). Nonnative speakers’ speech perception of
native speakers. Reports–Research, ERIC Clearinghouse on Language
and Linguistics, Washington DC.
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of
social cognition. The Proceedings of the National Academy of the United
States of America, 104, 12577–12580.
Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Accent
trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition,
27, 623–624.
Ko, S. J., Judd, C. M., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Stereotyping based on voice in
the presence of individuating information: Vocal femininity affects
perceived competence but not warmth. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35, 198–211.
Krauss, R. M., Freyberg, R., & Morsella, E. (2002). Inferring speakers’ phys-
ical attributes from their voices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 38, 618–625.
Kristiansen, T. (2001). Two standards: One for the media and one for the
school. Language Awareness, 10, 9–24.
Lambert, W. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social
Issues, 23, 91–109.
*Levin, H., Giles, H., & Garrett, P. (1994). The effects of lexical formality and
accent of trait attributions. Language and Communication, 14, 265–274.
*Light, R. L., Richaard, D. P., & Bell, P. (1978). Development of children’s
attitudes toward speakers of standard and non-standard English. Child
Study Journal, 8, 253–265.
*Lindemann, S. (2003). Koreans, Chinese or Indians? Attitudes and ideologies
about non-native English speakers in the United States. Journal of Sociolin-
guistics, 7, 348–364.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and
discrimination in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. W. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manusov, V., & Patterson, M. L. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of nonverbal
behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Effects of speakers’ accents 131
Marlow, M., & Giles, H. (2008). “Who you tink You, talkin propah?” Hawaiian
Pidgin demarginalized. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2, 53–69.
Mulac, A. (1975). Evaluation of the speech dialect attitudinal scale. Speech
Monographs, 42, 184–189.
Mulac, A., Hanley, T. D., & Prigge, D. Y. (1974). Effects of phonological
speech foreignness upon three dimensions of attitude of selected American
listeners. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 411–420.
Nazzi, T., Jusczyk, P., & Johnson, E. (2000a). Language discrimination by
English-leaning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal
of Memory and Language, 43, 1–19.
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Piche, G. L., Michlin, M., Rubin, D., & Sullivan, A. (1977). Effects of
dialect-ethnicity, social class and quality of written compositions on tea-
chers’ subjective evaluations of children. Communication Monographs,
44, 60–72.
*Powesland, P., & Giles, H. (1975). Persuasiveness and accent-message in-
compatibility. Human Relations, 28, 85–93.
Rakić, T., Steffens, M. C., & Mummendey, A. (2011). Blinded by the accent!
The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100, 16–29.
Ray, G. (2009). Language and interracial communication in the United
States: Speaking in Black and White. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Robinson, W. P. (1972). Language and social behavior. Harmonsworth:
Penguin.
Robinson, W. P. (2003). Language in social worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rosenthal, R . (1991). Effect sizes: Pearson’s correlation, its display via the
BESD, and alternative indices. American Psychologist, 46, 1086–1087.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent develop-
ments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 59–82.
Ryan, E. B. (1979). Why no low-prestige language varieties persist? In H.
Giles, & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp.
145–157). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1982). Attitude towards language variation:
Social and applied contexts. London: Edward Arnold.
Ryan, E. B., & Sebastian, R. J. (1980). The effects of speech style and social
class background on social judgments of speakers. The British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 229–233.
Ryan, E. B., Carranza, M. A., & Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions towards
varying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish-English. Lan-
guage and Speech, 20, 267–273.
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., & Sebastian, R. J. (1982). An integrative perspective
for the study of attitudes toward language variation. In E. B. Ryan, & H.
Giles (Eds.), Attitudes toward language variation (pp. 1–19). London:
Edward Arnold.
Sanders, J., & Fitch, K. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of language and social in-
teraction. Mahwah, NJ: Sage.
Scherer, K. R. (1979). Personality markers in speech. In K. R. Scherer & H.
Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 147–210). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Scherer, K. R., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (1979). Social markers in speech. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, M. A., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). Accent and social class effects on status
and solidarity evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11,
98–105.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.
In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 2–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
*Tsalikis, J., DeShields, O. W., & LaTour, M. S. (1991). The role of accent on
the credibility and effectiveness of the salesperson. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 6, 31–41.
Ventola, E., & Antos, G. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of interpersonal communi-
cation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech
evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4,
113–123.
*Study included in the meta-analysis.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
132 Jairo N. Fuertes et al.

APPENDIX A SAMPLE ITEMS FROM THE CODING FORM

Bibliographic reference:
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

____ 1. Study ID #
____ 2. Publication year

Information specific to study

____ 3. Context
1 Employment 4 No situational contexts—general study
2 Educational settings 5 Other: __________________________
3 Professional

____ 4. Location of study

1 United States 5 Australia
2 England 6 New Zealand
3 Scotland 7 Singapore
4 Ireland 8. Other: __________________________

____ 5. Standard accent in location of study

1 Received Pronunciation (RP) 4 Standard New Zealand Accent
2 Standard American Accent 5 Standard Accent not specified
3 Standard Australian Accent 6 Other ___________________________

____ 6. Non-standard accent in location of study

1 Cockney or other regional accents in England 5 New Zealand regional accent
2 Spanish accented 6 Asian accent
3 Black American accent 7 Non-standard accent not specified
4 Australian regional accent 8 Other ___________________________

Sample descriptors

____ 7. N of sample
____8. Mean age of sample
____ 8. Gender of sample
1 Female________ 2 Male________ 3 Not given_______

____ 9. Ethnicity of sample

1 Australian 4 Irish
2 Japanese 5 Vietnamese
3 Greek 6 Other______________

____ 10. Accent of sample

1 Standard 2 Non-standard 3 Both

____ 11. Socioeconomic Status of sample

1 Wealthy 4 Lower Middle class
2 Upper-middle class 5 Poor
3 Middle class 6 Not given

Research design descriptors

____ 12. Type of study
1 Experiment 2 Quasi-experimental 3 Correlational
____ 13. Study design
1 Within subjects 2 Between subjects 3 Mixed design

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
 Effects of speakers’ accents 133

____ 14. Design of analysis

1 MANOVA factorial 2 ANCOVA factorial 3 ANOVA factorial
____ 15. What medium was used
1 Audio 2 Video 3 Other
____ 16. What accent guise was used
1 Matched guise 2 Verbal guise 3 Other

Nature of dependent variable descriptors (list)

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 120–133 (2012)
Copyright of European Journal of Social Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats