Journal of Managerial Psychology

Emerald Article: The effect of Hispanic accents on employment decisions

Megumi Hosoda, Lam T. Nguyen, Eugene F. Stone-Romero

Article information:
To cite this document: Megumi Hosoda, Lam T. Nguyen, Eugene F. Stone-Romero, (2012),"The effect of Hispanic accents on employment
decisions", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 347 - 364
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211220162
Downloaded on: 19-12-2012
References: This document contains references to 41 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 603 times since 2012. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Megumi Hosoda, Lam T. Nguyen, Eugene F. Stone-Romero, (2012),"The effect of Hispanic accents on employment decisions", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 347 - 364
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211220162

Megumi Hosoda, Lam T. Nguyen, Eugene F. Stone-Romero, (2012),"The effect of Hispanic accents on employment decisions", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 347 - 364
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211220162

Megumi Hosoda, Lam T. Nguyen, Eugene F. Stone-Romero, (2012),"The effect of Hispanic accents on employment decisions", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 347 - 364
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211220162

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The effect of
The effect of Hispanic accents on Hispanic accents
employment decisions
Megumi Hosoda and Lam T. Nguyen
Department of Psychology, San José State University, San José, 347
California, USA, and
Eugene F. Stone-Romero Received June 2011
Revised August 2011
Department of Management, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Accepted August 2011
Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Despite the fact that Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing segment of the
population and that 44 percent of Hispanics of 18 years of age and older speak English less than very
well, research examining the impact of Spanish-accented English on employment-related decisions has
been scarce. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the effects of the accent (standard
American English and Mexican Spanish) of a hypothetical job applicant on employment-related
judgments and hiring decisions.
Design/methodology/approach – Participants made employment-related decisions (i.e. job
suitability ratings, likelihood of a promotion, and hiring decision) and judgments of personal
attributes (i.e. perceived competence and warmth) of a hypothetical applicant for an entry-level
software engineering job. The accent of the applicant was manipulated using the matched-guise
technique.
Findings – Results showed that compared to an applicant with a standard American-English accent,
one with a Mexican-Spanish accent was at a disadvantage when applying for the software engineering
job. The Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant was rated as less suitable for the job and viewed as less
likely to be promoted to a managerial position. In addition, fewer participants decided to hire the
Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant than the standard American English-accented applicant.
Practical implications – Given the negative evaluations of the Mexican-Spanish-accented
applicant, recruiters and interviewers should be selected who do not view foreign accents
negatively. Furthermore, organizations should make a conscious effort to regard foreign accents as
assets to their businesses.
Originality/value – This research contributes to our understanding of how foreign accents influence
decisions that have important economic consequences for individuals.
Keywords Foreign accent, Hispanics, Discrimination, Employment decisions, Stigma
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Hispanics constitute the largest and fastest growing minority group in the USA,
numbering 45.5 million, or 15 percent of its population (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008).
Projections call for the Hispanic population to nearly triple in number by 2050, i.e. to
rise to 132.8 million or about 30 percent of the nation’s population (US Census Bureau,
2008). Thus, nearly one in three US residents will be Hispanic by mid-century.
Immigration to the US is one of the factors underlying this trend. Indeed, 40 percent of Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 4, 2012
Hispanics in the USA are foreign-born (Grieco, 2009), and their migration increases the pp. 347-364
percentage of non-native English speakers in the USA (Parliman and Shoeman, 1994). q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
In 2008, 13.7 million (i.e. more than 44 percent) of Hispanics in the USA who were 18 DOI 10.1108/02683941211220162
JMP years of age and older reported that they spoke English less than very well and this
27,4 percentage rose to 72 percent if they were foreign-born (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008).
Overall, research shows that more than 76 percent of Mexican-born immigrants and 44
percent of other Hispanic immigrants speak English less than very well (Pew Hispanic
Center, 2006, 2007, 2008). In addition, many foreign-born Hispanics and some
native-born Hispanics speak English with an accent or do not speak it at all.
348 The above-noted statistics clearly demonstrate that Hispanics will be a very large
segment of the next generation of US workers (Wells, 2008). In addition, foreign-born
Hispanic workers will play an important role in the US economy. Nevertheless, relative
to workers of other ethnicities, Hispanics have been neglected in research in industrial
and organizational psychology and allied fields (Lin et al., 1992). The scarcity of
research on Hispanic workers persists even though there is considerable evidence of
bias against them (Kennedy and Wissoker, 1994; Sanchez and Brock, 1996). In addition,
there is a paucity of research on bias against Spanish-accented applicants. This is
unfortunate given that both statistical and research evidence clearly demonstrates
biases against foreign-accented individuals in the workplace (e.g. Podberesky et al.,
1990; Reitz, 2001). For example, in the US immigrants have much higher
unemployment rates and much lower earning levels than native English speakers
(Reitz, 2001). Furthermore, using data from a national stratified random sample of
employers, the United States General Accounting Office (1990) estimated that 10
percent of them (i.e. 461,000 employers) engaged in illegal discriminatory hiring
practices based on a person’s foreign appearance or accent. Through a telephone audit,
the same study found that 41 percent of employers treated applicants with accents
differently from applicants without accents; i.e. telling accented callers that the jobs
were filled, but telling unaccented callers that the same jobs were still open, scheduling
employment interviews only with unaccented callers, and requiring significantly
different documents from accented callers than from unaccented callers.
In view of the above, this study examined the effects of the accent (standard
American English versus Mexican-Spanish) of a hypothetical job applicant on
employment judgments and hiring decisions. In the paragraphs that follow, we
consider a model of stigmatization in organizations (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2007)
that serves to explain the potential negative treatment accorded to Mexican-Spanish
accented applicants. In addition, we review past research on the effects of foreign
accents on employment-related decisions, and present the hypotheses that were tested
in the present study.

A model of stigmatization in organizations

Stone-Romero and Stone (2007) developed a model of stigmatization in organizations.
They defined a stigma as “a real or perceived deeply discrediting discrepancy between
a person’s virtual and actual social identities” (p. 129). A virtual social identity (VSI)
represents what is expected of a person in terms of characteristics such as abilities,
personality, physical appearance, attitudes, behaviors, and diction (enunciation) in a
social system (e.g. an organization). In an organizational context, a VSI constitutes a
prototype of an ideal job applicant and/or incumbent (i.e. what a person ought to be). In
contrast, an actual social identity (ASI) represents the way a person is actually
perceived or is capable of being perceived by an observer. For example, if a job
applicant speaks with a foreign accent, he/she may be perceived as not having all of the
desired characteristics of an ideal applicant and/or incumbent. The negative The effect of
discrepancy between his or her ASI and VSI would result in the applicant being Hispanic accents
stigmatized.
According to Stone-Romero and Stone (2007), the culture of an organization (e.g. its
values and norms) has a great influence on beliefs about the VSIs of job applicants
and/or incumbents. In most US organizations, male, White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants
(MWASPs) who have a standard American English accent generally have a greater 349
potential to influence the culture of an organization than do ethnic minority group
members. As a result, the prototypes of ideal job applicants and/or incumbents mainly
reflect the values and beliefs of MWASPs, which are rooted in Western European and
Northern European cultures (Stone-Romero and Stone, 2007).
Stone-Romero and Stone (2007) argue that the VSIs of ideal job applicants and/or
incumbents also may be based on such attributes as race, gender, and ethnicity. One
additional attribute of the VSIs of a job applicants and/or incumbents is that that they
should not have a foreign accent because it might affect performance negatively (e.g.
Purkiss et al., 2006). Therefore, a foreign accent may often serve as a basis for a stigma.
As a result, foreign-accented applicants might suffer a number of negative
consequences in employment-related decision making (e.g. reduced chances of being
hired for various jobs, reduced likelihood of being promoted to upper level positions).
Stone-Romero and Stone (2007) contend that the prototypes of job applicants and/or
incumbents differ as a function of job status, but that in US organizations, a
prototypical incumbent for high status roles (e.g. jobs) is generally one who has
attributes that are similar to members of the dominant group in society (e.g. young,
attractive, male, White, with a standard American English accent). As a result of a
negative discrepancy between the VSIs and the ASIs of members of non-dominant
groups they are often viewed as unsuitable for high status jobs. Conversely, the
prototypes of incumbents in low status jobs are likely to be similar to the ASIs of
individuals in non-dominant groups. Thus, they are likely to be perceived as suitable
for such jobs. Research supports this view. In general, it shows that applicants with an
accent of a dominant group in society are judged to be suited for high status jobs,
whereas applicants with foreign accents are viewed as appropriate for low status jobs
(e.g., Giles et al., 1981; Kalin, 1982; Ryan et al., 1984). For example, Standard American
English-accented applicants were found to be more likely to be hired for a supervisor
position, whereas Spanish-accented Mexican American applicants were more likely to
be hired for a semi-skilled position (de la Zerda and Hopper, 1979). Likewise, research
in Canada (Kalin and Rayko, 1978) showed that standard English Canadian-accented
applicants were rated as most suitable for high-status jobs (e.g. foreman), but
foreign-accented candidates were rated as most suitable for low-status jobs (i.e. plant
cleaner).
Exceptions to the above-noted findings are a few varieties of foreign-accented
English in the USA (e.g. British, French, Asian). Applicants with these accents were
not negatively evaluated for high status jobs, because they were perceived to have
status equal to that of members of the dominant group (Cargile, 1997, 2000; Cargile and
Bradac, 2001; Hosoda and Stone-Romero, 2010). For example, Cargile (1997) reported
that relative to Standard American English-accented applicants, Mandarin
Chinese-accented applicants were viewed as equally suitable for high status jobs
(e.g. assistant brand manager) and low-status jobs (e.g. courier).
JMP These findings suggest that members of some non-dominant groups may not be
27,4 subject to negative evaluations even if they speak English with a foreign accent. In this
regard, the findings of recent research show that accent alone is not sufficient as a
basis for understanding evaluations of job applicants. For example, Purkiss et al. (2006)
assert that both an applicant’s name and accent type need to be considered to
understand how he/she will be evaluated. Manipulating both accent type and name
350 independently, they found that a Hispanic-named applicant with a Hispanic accent
received the most unfavorable interview-based evaluations, but a Hispanic-named
applicant with a Standard American English accent received the most favorable
evaluations. The ratings of an Anglo-named applicant were the same regardless of
accent type (i.e. Hispanic versus Standard American English). In addition, their study’s
results showed that although the synergistic cues of the applicant accent and applicant
name influenced evaluations of applicants, the same cues did not have an effect on
hiring decisions. Moreover, a study by Hosoda and Stone-Romero (2010) demonstrated
that both the status of a job and its communication demands are critical in
understanding discrimination against applicants with foreign accents. More
specifically, their research showed that Japanese-accented applicants and
French-accented applicants were not rated more negatively than Standard American
English-accented applicants for high-status jobs that differed on communication
demands. However, compared to both French-accented and Standard American
English-accented applicants, Japanese-accented applicants were rated as less suitable
for a low-status job that had high communication demands (i.e. customer service
representative). Similarly, Cargile (2000) noted that when a job description of a Human
Resource Associate included the statement that he/she must “possess good
communication skills”, Mandarin Chinese-accented applicants were judged to be less
suited for it than applicants with non-foreign accents. These findings are consistent
with Adler’s (1987) assertion that job applicants with foreign accents or dialects are not
likely to be selected for jobs that require strong communication skills.
Given that individuals with accents of non-dominant groups are consistently rated
as having relatively low levels of suitability for high status jobs, we tested the
following hypothesis:
H1. Relative to job applicants with a Standard American English accent, those
with a Mexican-Spanish accent will be rated as less suitable for an entry-level
software engineering job (H1a), viewed as having a lower chance of being
promoted to a managerial position (H1b), and hired less frequently (H1c).
It is worth adding that the Summary Report for the position of Computer Software
Engineer (15-1032.00) on O *Net OnLine (n.d.) indicates that the incumbent should have
“Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the
meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar”. In addition, the
job requires “talking to others to convey information effectively” and “the ability to
communicate information and ideas in speaking so others will understand”. Thus, the
job is definitely one for which strong communication skills and abilities are essential.

Perceptions of applicants’ characteristics

Lee and Fiske’s (2006) stereotype content model indicates that perceptions of others are
based on two universal dimensions, i.e. competence and warmth. People attribute
competence to members of groups that are perceived as holding prestigious jobs and The effect of
being economically successful, whereas they attribute warmth to members of groups
that are perceived to be harmless. In a study of these dimensions vis-à-vis several
Hispanic accents
immigrant groups, Lee and Fiske (2006) found that relative to Americans, Hispanic
immigrants (e.g. Mexican, Latino, South American) were perceived to be less
competent, but equally warm.
Consistent with these findings, research on language attitudes demonstrates that a 351
foreign accent or dialect serves as an important cue in the social evaluations of
speakers (e.g. Cargile and Bradac, 2001). Individuals with the accent of the dominant
group are often seen as having both status and power, whereas people with accents of
less dominant groups are viewed as having low levels of socioeconomic success
(Cargile, 2000). Indeed, research shows that people with accents or dialects of dominant
groups in a society are evaluated more positively than members of non-dominant
groups on traits such as competence, intelligence, and social status (e.g. Giles et al.,
1995). However, people with accents or dialects of non-dominant groups are evaluated
as favorably as and sometimes more favorably on such traits as kindness, solidarity,
and overall attractiveness (e.g. Cargile and Bradac, 2001; Sebastian et al., 1980). In view
of these findings, we tested the following hypothesis:
H2. Mexican-Spanish-accented applicants will be evaluated as less competent (H2a)
but warmer (H2b) than Standard American English-accented applicants.
Note that H2a (i.e. Mexican-Spanish accented applicants viewed as low on competence)
is based on the research of Lee and Fiske (2006), and H2b (i.e. Mexican-Spanish
accented applicants regarded as high on warmth) is predicated on the work of Cargile
and Bradac (2001) and Sebastian et al. (1980).

Method
Participants
A total of 203 (117 female, 85 male, and one person did not report his/her sex)
undergraduate students in Northern California were recruited from an introductory
psychology class as part of required research participation. Their ages ranged from 18
years to 48 years (M ¼ 19:61, SD ¼ 3:06). The sample was diverse in terms of ethnic
composition: 34 percent Asian (n ¼ 69), 26 percent White (n ¼ 52), 21 percent Spanish
(n ¼ 42), 7 percent Middle Eastern (n ¼ 14), 6 percent African American (n ¼ 13), 1
percent Native American (n ¼ 1), and 4 percent (n ¼ 8) mixed race. Four participants
did not report their ethnicity.
Participants had an average of three years of work experience (SD ¼ 2:93; range of
0 to 25 years), and 51 percent (n ¼ 104) were working at the time of data collection. The
majority of them (n ¼ 95) were employed part-time.

Procedure
Each experimental session was run with a single participant. At the beginning of each,
the experimenter informed the participant that the study was about
employment-related decisions and that he/she would be asked to:
.
assume that he/she had responsibility for hiring someone for an entry-level job;
.
listen to the applicant describe himself and his desire for the job; and
.
evaluate him vis-à-vis employment-related factors.
JMP Then the participant was:
27,4 .
asked to complete an informed consent agreement; and
. provided with an instruction sheet and a questionnaire.

The experimenter told the participant that he/she would wait outside the room and
allow the participant to read the instruction sheet carefully and privately without any
352 distractions. The experimenter then asked the participant to notify him once he/she
finished reading it. The instructions reiterated what the experimenter had previously
told the participant, but also included the brief job description of and qualifications
required for an entry-level software engineering job. These were based on the views of
a subject-matter expert, i.e. an actual software engineer.
When the participant notified the experimenter that he/she had finished reading the
instruction sheet, the experimenter entered the room and told the participant that
he/she would listen to a recording of one applicant for about one minute (only once) and
that he/she would then evaluate the applicant using a questionnaire. The experimenter
asked if the participant had any questions. The experimenter then started the audio
playback on a laptop computer and left the room. After the participant completed the
questionnaire, he/she was provided with a written debriefing. All participants were
randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions described below.

Accent manipulation
The applicant accent manipulation was based on the matched-guise technique
(Lambert, 1967) in which a single, genuinely bilingual Mexican American speaker read
a prepared script that described himself and his desire for a job in two accent
conditions (Standard American English and Mexican-Spanish). This technique is
widely used because the speaker is held constant by design. Therefore, paralinguistic
characteristics (e.g. voice quality, pitch, tone) are assumed to remain constant across
different accent conditions, thereby ruling out various confounds (Bresnahan et al.,
2002). However, the same technique is not without limitations. It might be susceptible
to threats to validity that are present when conclusions are drawn about the impact of a
variable (i.e. an accent) based on a single empirical realization of it (Cargile and Giles,
1997).
The stimulus speaker’s speech was rehearsed so that he did not sound like he was
virtually reading from a script. Multiple recordings were made before selecting the
recordings that were in the study. The stimulus person was fluent in English and used
correct grammar. His recorded speech lasted about one minute.

Measures
The study used measures of several variables. The items in each are shown in
Appendix 1.
Job suitability. Job suitability was measured with a three-item summated scale
(a ¼ 0:87). A sample item is “I feel that he is suited for the job”. Participants responded
to the items along seven-point Likert-type scales (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly
agree). The higher the score on the measure, the more suitable the applicant was for the
job.
Likelihood of a promotion. The likelihood of a promotion was measured with a
two-item summated scale. A sample item is “The likelihood of him to move up to the
upper level managerial position is”. Participants responded to these items along The effect of
seven-point Likert-type scales (1 ¼ very low, 7 ¼ very high). The higher the score on
the measure, the greater the likelihood of the applicant being promoted. Note that the
Hispanic accents
two items were highly correlated (r ¼ 0:86, p , 0:001).
Hiring decision. Hiring decision was measured with a single item “Would you hire
him for the job?”. Hiring decision was scored 1 for “no” or 2 for “yes”.
Perceptions of the applicant’s personal characteristics. The applicant’s personal 353
characteristics were measured in terms of both competence (seven items, a ¼ 0:85,
e.g. intelligent, competent, educated) and warmth (seven items, a ¼ 0:90, e.g. warm,
likeable, considerate). Each of these variables was measured using semantic
differential items that had seven equally spaced line segments. The higher the score
on the measure, the more positively the applicant was perceived.

Accent manipulation checks

One item was used to assess the effectiveness of the applicant accent manipulation.
Participants were asked to indicate the strength of the applicant’s accent on a
seven-point Likert type scale (1 ¼ no accent at all, 7 ¼ very strong accent). We also
asked participants what they thought the applicant’s race/ethnicity was. Participants
selected their responses from a list having six options (White, Asian, Native American,
African American, Latino, and Middle Eastern).

Results
Accent manipulation checks
The results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) supported the effectiveness of the
applicant accent manipulation: The Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant was
perceived as having a stronger accent (M ¼ 5:10, SD ¼ 1:19) than the Standard
American English-accented applicant (M ¼ 2:84, SD ¼ 1:55), Fð1; 201Þ ¼ 135:01,
p , 0:001. Furthermore, 61 percent of respondents (n ¼ 63) in the Standard American
English-accent condition judged him to be White and 82 percent of the respondents
(n ¼ 80) in the Mexican-Spanish-accented condition categorized him as being Hispanic.

Preliminary analyses
Given that 39 percent of the participants (n ¼ 40) in the Standard American English
condition identified the applicant as non-White, we tested for differences on the
measured variables between participants who identified the applicant as White and
those who identified him as non-White. Results of a MANOVA showed that there was
no difference between these two groups, Fð5; 97Þ ¼ 0:58, p ¼ 0:72; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:97.
Likewise, 18 percent of the participants (n ¼ 18) in the Mexican-Spanish-accented
English condition identified the applicant as non-Hispanic. Therefore, we tested for
differences on the measured variables between those who identified the applicant as
Hispanic and those who identified him as non-Hispanic. Results of a MANOVA
showed that there was no difference between these two groups, Fð5; 93Þ ¼ 0:75,
p ¼ 0:59; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:96. Thus, all the data were used to test the hypotheses.
Given the ethnic diversity of the study’s sample, we examined whether it had any
effect on the study’s results, by testing for a participant ethnicity £ applicant accent
interaction effect. Participants were separated into four groups:
(1) Whites (n ¼ 52);
(2) Asians (n ¼ 69);
JMP (3) Hispanic (n ¼ 42); and
27,4 (4) Other (n ¼ 36).

Because the Middle Eastern, African American, Native American, and mixed race
ethnic groups had relatively small numbers of participants, they were all placed in the
Other group. The result of a 2(applicant accentÞ £ 4ðethnicityÞ MANOVA showed that
354 the ethnicity of participants did not have any effect on the measured variables,
Fð15; 513:87Þ ¼ 1:15, p ¼ 0:30, Wilks’ l ¼ 0:91, and it did not interact with applicant
accent, Fð15; 513:87Þ ¼ 0:72, p ¼ 0:76, Wilks’ l ¼ 0:94[1].
We also examined whether the measured variables were influenced by a participant
sex £ applicant accent interaction. Results of a 2(applicant accentÞ £ 2ðparticipant sex)
MANOVA showed that there was an effect of participant sex, Fð5; 193Þ ¼ 3:31,
p , 0:01; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:92, but it did not interact with applicant accent,
Fð5; 193Þ ¼ 1:00, p ¼ 0:42, Wilks’ l ¼ 0:98. Thus, all of the hypotheses were tested
using applicant accent as the sole independent variable.

Tests of hypotheses
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the measured variables appear in Table I.
It shows that applicant accent was related to all of the measured variables, except
perceived warmth. The correlation coefficients ranged from 2 0.21 and 0.56. In view of
these coefficients, a MANOVA analysis was appropriate for testing all but one of the
study’s hypotheses.
Employment-related decisions. It was hypothesized that the Mexican-Spanish-accented
applicant would be rated as less suitable for the job (H1a) and would have a lower
chance of being promoted to a managerial position (H1b) than the Standard American
English applicant. These hypotheses were tested using a one-way between-subjects
MANOVA. The results showed that applicant accent had an effect, Fð2; 200Þ ¼ 9:69,
p , 0:01, Wilks’ l ¼ 0:91. Follow-up ANOVAs showed that applicant accent affected
both job suitability ratings, Fð1; 201Þ ¼ 9:79, p , 0:01, and the likelihood of being
promoted, Fð1; 201Þ ¼ 17:14, p , 0:001. More specifically, the Mexican-Spanish-accented
applicant was rated as less suitable (M ¼ 4:35, SD ¼ 1:35) for the software engineering
job than the Standard American English-accented applicant (M ¼ 4:93, SD ¼ 1:29)
(see Figure 1). Likewise, the Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant (M ¼ 3:35,
SD ¼ 1:43) was perceived as having a lower chance of being promoted than the
Standard American English-accented applicant (M ¼ 4:20, SD ¼ 1:47) (see Figure 2).
These results support both H1a and H1b.

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Applicant accent – –
Job suitability 4.65 1.35 20.22 * *
Likelihood for promotion 3.79 1.51 20.28 * 0.46 * *
Table I. Hiring decision 1.43 0.50 20.21 * * 0.56 * * 0.48 * *
Means, standard Perceived competence 4.53 0.95 20.35 * * 0.44 * * 0.53 * * 0.44 * *
deviations, and Perceived warmth 4.28 1.04 0.04 0.41 * * 0.23 * * 0.42 * * 0.31 * *
correlations among
measured variables Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01
 The effect of
Hispanic accents

355

Figure 1.
Mean suitability ratings as
a function of applicant
accent

Figure 2.
Mean likelihood of a
promotion as a function of
applicant accent
JMP Hiring decision. H1c stated that the Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant would be
27,4 hired less frequently than the Standard American English applicant. A x 2 test showed
that applicant accent influenced the hiring decision, x 2 ð1; n ¼ 202Þ ¼ 9:14, p , 0:01.
As can be seen in Table II, more participants in the Standard American English
condition decided to hire the applicant (54 percent) than to not hire him (47 percent).
However, two-thirds of the participants in the Mexican-Spanish accent condition
356 decided not to hire him compared to 32 percent who decided to hire him. These results
show clear support for H1c. The Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant was not likely to
be hired for the software engineering position.
Perceptions of an applicant’s characteristics. We predicted that the Mexican-
Spanish-accented applicant would be perceived as less competent (H2a) but warmer
(H2b) than the Standard American English applicant. These predictions were tested
using a one-way between-subjects MANOVA. Results showed an effect for applicant
accent, Fð2; 200Þ ¼ 17:81, Wilks’ l ¼ 0:85, p , 0:001. Follow-up ANOVAs showed
that applicant accent had an effect on ratings of perceived competence,
Fð1; 201Þ ¼ 28:67, p , 0:001, but not perceived warmth, Fð1; 201Þ ¼ 0:38, p ¼ 0:54.
Consistent with H2a, the Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant (M ¼ 4:19, SD ¼ 0:96)
was viewed as less competent than the Standard American English-accented applicant
(M ¼ 4:86, SD ¼ 0:82), but as warm as the Standard-American English-accented
applicant (M ¼ 4:32, SD ¼ 1:05 versus M ¼ 4:23, SD ¼ 1:04).

Discussion
Despite the facts that Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing segment of the
population and that research shows clear evidence of bias against Hispanic workers,
little research attention has been paid to their experiences in the workplace.
Furthermore, despite more than 44 percent of Hispanics 18 years of age and older
reporting that they spoke English less than very well (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008),
research examining the impact of Spanish accents on employment-related decisions
has been scarce. Therefore, using the matched-guise technique, the present study
examined the effects of applicant accent (Standard American English versus
Mexican-Spanish) on several employment-related criteria and perceptions of an
applicant’s personal attributes.
The results show that compared to an applicant with a Standard American-English
accent, one with a Mexican-Spanish accent was at a disadvantage when applying for a
high-status job (i.e., software engineer). The Mexican-Spanish-accented applicant was
rated as less suitable for it and was viewed as less likely to be promoted to a
managerial position than the Standard American-English accented applicant.
Additionally, the results showed that participants were not likely to hire the
applicant with the Mexican-Spanish-accent. These results imply that
Mexican-Spanish-accented applicants might experience both access-related

Would you hire the applicant for the job?

Accent type No (n) Yes (n)
Table II.
Effect of applicant accent Standard American English 48 55
on hiring decisions Mexican-Spanish 67 32
discrimination (i.e. not being hired for a high status job) and treatment-related The effect of
discrimination (i.e. less likely to be promoted to a higher level position) even if they Hispanic accents
were hired.
Consistent with research on language attitudes, the Mexican-Spanish-accented
applicant was viewed as being less competent than, but as warm as the Standard
American English-accented applicant. These findings are consistent with those of Lee
and Fiske (2006) who found that Hispanic immigrants in general (e.g. Mexican, Latino, 357
South American) were perceived to be less competent than, but as warm as Americans.
Overall, the results of the present study are consistent with Lippi-Green’s (1997)
assertion that negative reactions are evoked by accents associated with countries of
lower-socioeconomic status and darker skin colors.
Interestingly, participant ethnicity did not have any effect on reactions to the
applicants. The lack of an interaction between participant ethnicity and applicant
accent on the measured variables is consistent with several other studies (e.g. Hosoda
and Stone-Romero, 2010) that failed to find an interactive effect of participant ethnicity
and applicant accent on employment-related decisions. Likewise, participant gender
did not interact with applicant accent to influence the measured variables. These
findings indicate that the VSI of a job applicant for a high status job includes the belief
that he/she does not speak with a foreign accent. Interestingly, this belief was common
to participants who varied greatly in terms of both their ethnicity and gender. These
results imply that individuals who make hiring decisions will view applicants with
Standard American-English accents and Mexican-Spanish accents in terms of the
standards (VSI) of the dominant group, regardless of their sex and whether or not they
are members of it (Purkiss et al., 2006).

Limitations and future research

Despite the contributions of the present study, it has several potential limitations. First,
it manipulated accent only. No applicant name information was provided in the scripts.
As mentioned above, research by Purkiss et al. (2006) demonstrated that the
synergistic cues of an applicant (i.e. accent and name) influenced the evaluation of him;
a Hispanic-named applicant with a Spanish accent received the most negative
evaluation, but a Hispanic-named applicant with a Standard American English accent
received the most positive evaluation. The evaluation of an Anglo-named applicant
was the same regardless of whether he had a Spanish accent or a Standard American
English accent. Therefore, a future study should separate accent and name
experimentally to examine how Mexican-Hispanic-named applicants without accents
are evaluated and how Anglo-named applicants with a Spanish accent are evaluated
relative to Anglo-named applicants with a Standard American English accent.
However, it deserves mention that although Purkiss et al. (2006) found that the
synergistic cues of an applicant influenced interview judgments, they did not influence
hiring decisions. In contrast, the results of the present study showed that even in the
absence of applicant name information, accent affected all of the dependent variables
except perceived warmth.
A second limitation is that the qualifications of the applicant (as reported in the
materials provided to respondents) might have been somewhat low for a software
engineering job. More specifically the applicant was characterized as having a GPA of
2.80. Thus, future research should manipulate this variable.
JMP A third possible limitation of the present study is that the script (see Appendix 2)
27,4 included both positive and negative information about the applicant. Fiske (1998) has
argued that stereotypes are most influential in ambiguous situations. Similarly,
research by Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) found that discrimination is most likely to
occur when an individual’s qualifications for a position are ambiguous. In order to
maximize the effect of an applicant accent, we made the qualification of and the
358 personal statement of the applicant somewhat ambiguous for the position. Therefore,
we do not know if similar results would obtain if we had used highly qualified
applicants who differed on accent. Thus, future research should examine the effects of
applicant accent and the level of qualification for a position on personnel decisions.
Fourth, the major purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of
applicant accent on employment-related decisions. However, given that an increasing
number of American companies are outsourcing their customer service operations to
foreign countries (e.g. China, India), it is imperative to examine customers’ reactions to
foreign-accented employees who are in jobs that require frequent communications with
the customers in terms of such criteria as service satisfaction and intent to buy a
company’s products or use its services. In a recent study, Lev-Ari and Keysar (2010)
demonstrated that statements delivered by both a mild-accented and a heavy-accented
speakers were judged to be less truthful than those delivered by native English
speakers. Given these findings, it appears that customers are less trustful or more
suspicious of foreign-accented customer service representatives or sales persons. This
might lead to lower customer satisfaction or lower intention to purchase a company’s
products. Indeed, the results of research suggest that foreign-accents of employees in
service-related industries might negatively affect customers’ intentions to purchase a
company’s products or use of its services. For example, Lalwani et al. (2005)
demonstrated that listeners perceived a British English-accented spokesperson for
products to be more credible than a Singaporean English-accented spokesperson. The
listeners also displayed more positive attitudes towards advertisements and higher
purchase intentions for the products when advertised by a British English-accented
spokesperson than by a Singaporean English-accented spokesperson. However, more
research in this area is needed.
Fifth, although the experimental nature of the present study allows for causal
inferences about the applicant accent, a frequent criticism of experimental research
concerned with personnel-related decision making is that because it often relies on
college student participants, its results may not be generalizable to people who actually
make personnel decisions in organizational contexts (Gordon et al., 1986; Stone et al.,
1992). Gordon et al. (1986) argued that college students are unacceptable surrogates for
actual decision makers. However, research by Bernstein et al. (1975) showed that
ratings of job applicants by students were nearly identical to those of professional
interviewers.
Interestingly, a bias against foreign-accented individuals by actual decision makers
has been reported in actual work settings (e.g. de la Zerda and Hopper, 1979). Thus, we
doubt that our findings are an artifact of experimental research and the use of student
decision-makers. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to determine the external
validity of our findings.
Sixth, an anonymous reviewer noted our study was limited by the fact that the
sample sizes were unequal for the two accent conditions. It deserves noting that the
effect of this would be to underestimate the strength of the relation between accent type The effect of
and the measured variables. In view of the fact the support was found for our Hispanic accents
hypotheses, unequal sample sizes is not a weakness of our study.
Seventh, the same reviewer argued that our study’s results may have stemmed from
mono-method bias. We view this as highly unlikely. Mono-method bias tends to be a
problem in non-experimental research that uses measures of assumed independent
variables. In contrast, our study was experimental; that is the independent variable 359
(accent type) was manipulated and the dependent variables were measured. Thus, we
are confident that our findings are not a result of mono-method bias.
Finally, research on the effect of foreign accents on employment-related decisions in
the field of industrial and organizational psychology is in its infancy. It has focused
mainly on the effects of foreign accents on employment-related decisions. However,
only a few studies have examined the effects of listener characteristics on the effects of
foreign accents on such decisions. Several studies (e.g. Hosoda and Stone-Romero,
2010; Purkiss et al., 2006) and the present study found that participants’ ethnicity did
not interact with applicant accent to influence their judgments and evaluations of
foreign-accented applicants. Likewise, although Purkiss et al. (2006) predicted that
modern ethnicity bias toward Hispanics influenced judgments of Hispanic-accented
applicants, their results did not support their prediction. Nevertheless, future research
should investigate individual differences in the acceptance of foreign-accents.

Practical implications
An initial screening for applicants often involves a phone inquiry about an applicant’s
interest in and qualifications for a job. The results of the present study suggest that
foreign-accented applicants might be disadvantaged and unfairly screened out through
such an inquiry. Therefore, organizations should use interviewers who do not view
foreign accents negatively, who have international experience, and who have positive
views about individuals with foreign accents (Purkiss et al., 2006).
The economy is becoming increasingly global. Businesses are focusing on global
markets and greater numbers of companies are going international (Riggio, 2008).
Inevitably, these trends will increase both the hiring of individuals who speak English
with foreign accents and the likelihood of interactions between native
English-speaking employees and foreign-accented employees. Instead of viewing a
foreign accent as a disadvantage or challenge that needs to be overcome, organizations
need to make a conscious effort to view foreign accents as an asset. For example,
foreign-accented applicants or incumbents often speak two or more languages and
have an understanding of cross-cultural differences. These factors may contribute to
the success of organizations.
In sum, the present study shows that the non-content characteristic of speech (i.e.
foreign accent) influenced decisions that have important economic consequences (e.g.
hiring, promotion decision) for individuals. Thus, organizational practices need to be
structured so as to minimize the negative effects of biases against individuals with
foreign accents.

Note
1. We also categorized participants into three groups that represented the majority of the
sample: Whites, Asians, and Latinos. Thus, a 2(accent typeÞ £ 3ðparticipant ethnicity)
JMP MANOVA was conducted. Results showed no effect of ethnicity of participants on the
measured variables, Fð10; 304Þ ¼ 1:47, p ¼ 0:15; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:91, and no interaction
27,4 between accent type and ethnicity of participants, Fð10; 304Þ ¼ 0:30, p ¼ :98; Wilks’
l ¼ :98. Additionally, given that White participants might respond differently compared to
non-White participants, participants were separated into two groups, i.e. Whites versus
non-Whites. The result of a 2(accent typeÞ £ 2ðparticipant ethnicity) MANOVA showed no
effect of participant ethnicity, Fð5; 190Þ ¼ 1:45, p ¼ 0:21; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:96, or an interaction
360 between it and accent type, Fð5; 190Þ ¼ 0:33, p ¼ 0:90; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:99. Furthermore, given
a relatively large number of Asian participants, we categorized the participants into Asians
and non-Asians and conducted a 2(accent typeÞ £ 2ðparticipant ethnicity) MANOVA. It
showed no effect of participant ethnicity, Fð5; 190Þ ¼ 1:91, p ¼ 0:10; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:95, and no
interaction between it and accent type, Fð5; 190Þ ¼ :47, p ¼ 0:80; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:99. Finally,
given that the present study used a Hispanic accent, we tested for differences in responses
between Latino and non-Latino participants. A 2(accent typeÞ £ 2ðparticipant ethnicity)
MANOVA showed no effect of participant ethnicity on the measured variables,
Fð5; 190Þ ¼ :99, p ¼ 0:43; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:98, and no interaction between it and accent type,
Fð5; 190Þ ¼ 0:49, p ¼ 0:79; Wilks’ l ¼ 0:99.

References
Adler, S. (1987), “Bidalectalism? Mandatory or elective?”, Asha, Vol. 29, pp. 41-2.
Bernstein, V., Hakel, M.D. and Harlan, A. (1975), “The college student as interviewer: a threat to
generalizability?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 266-8.
Bresnahan, M.J., Ohashi, R., Nebashi, R., Liu, W.Y. and Shearman, S.M. (2002), “Attitudinal and
affective response toward accented English”, Language & Communication, Vol. 22,
pp. 171-85.
Cargile, A.C. (1997), “Attitudes toward Chinese-accented speech: an investigation in two
contexts”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 434-43.
Cargile, A.C. (2000), “Evaluation of employment suitability: does accent always matter?”, Journal
of Employment Counseling, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 165-77.
Cargile, A.C. and Bradac, J.J. (2001), “Attitudes toward language: a review of applicant-evaluation
research and a general process model”, in Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook 25, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, p. 347.
Cargile, A.C. and Giles, H. (1997), “Language attitudes towards varieties of English: an
American-Japanese context”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 26,
pp. 338-56.
de la Zerda, N. and Hopper, F. (1979), “Employment interviewers’ reactions to Mexican American
speech”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 126-34.
Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (2000), “Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999”,
Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 8, pp. 101-5.
Fiske, S.T. (1998), “Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination”, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and
Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 2, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, pp. 357-411.
Giles, H., Wilson, P. and Conway, A. (1981), “Accent and lexical diversity as determinants of
impression formation and perceived employment suitability”, Language Sciences, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 91-103.
Giles, H., Williams, A., Mackie, D.M. and Rosselli, F. (1995), “Reactions to Anglo- and
Hispanic-American-accented speakers: affect, identity, persuasion, and the English-only
controversy”, Language & Communication, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107-20.
Gordon, M.E., Slade, L.A.L. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The ‘science of the sophomore’ revisited: The effect of
from conjecture to empiricism”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 91-207.
Grieco, E.M. (2009), Race and Hispanic Origin of the Foreign-Born Population in the United
Hispanic accents
States: 2007, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-11, US Census Bureau,
Washington, DC.
Hosoda, M. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (2010), “The effects of foreign accents on employment-related
decisions”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 113-32. 361
Kalin, R. (1982), “The social significance of speech in medical, legal and occupational settings”, in
Ryan, E.B. and Giles, H. (Eds), Attitudes Towards Language Variation in Social and
Applied Contexts, Edward Arnold, London, pp. 148-63.
Kalin, R. and Rayko, D.S. (1978), “Discrimination in evaluative judgments against foreign
accented job candidates”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 43, pp. 1203-9.
Kennedy, G.M. and Wissoker, D.A. (1994), “An analysis of the correlates of discrimination facing
young Hispanic job-seekers”, American Economic Review, Vol. 84, pp. 674-83.
Lalwani, A.K., Lwin, M. and Li, K.L. (2005), “Consumer responses to English accent variations in
advertising”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 3/4, pp. 143-65.
Lambert, W. (1967), “A social psychology of bilingualism”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 23,
pp. 91-109.
Lee, T.L. and Fiske, S.T. (2006), “Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: immigrants in the
stereotype content model”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 30,
pp. 751-68.
Lev-Ari, S. and Keysar, B. (2010), “Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of
accent on credibility”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 1093-6.
Lin, T.R., Dobins, G.H. and Farh, J.L. (1992), “A field study of race and age similarity effects on
interview ratings in conventional and situational interviews”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 363-71.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997), English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the
United States, Routledge, London.
*
O Net OnLine (n.d.), Summary report for the position of computer software engineer
(15-1032.00), available at: www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1032.00.
Parliman, G.C. and Shoeman, R.J. (1994), “National origin discrimination or employer
prerogative? An analysis of language rights in the workplace”, Employee Relations Law
Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 551-65.
Pew Hispanic Center (2006), “America’s immigration quandary: no consensus on immigration
problem or proposed fixes”, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, available at: http://
pewhispanic.org/files/reports/63.pdf (accessed June 10, 2009).
Pew Hispanic Center (2007), “Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2007”, Pew
Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, available at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/
hispanics2007/Table-19.pdf (accessed September 1, 2009).
Pew Hispanic Center (2008), “Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2008”, Pew
Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, available at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/
hispanics2008/Table%2020.pdf (accessed February 8, 2010).
Podberesky, R., Deluty, R. and Feldstein, S. (1990), “Evaluations of Spanish- and
Oriental-accented English applicants”, Social Behavior & Personality, Vol. 18, pp. 53-63.
Purkiss, S.K.S., Perrewé, P.K., Gillespie, T.L., Mayes, B.T. and Ferris, G.R. (2006), “Implicit
sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, Vol. 101, pp. 152-67.
JMP Reitz, J.G. (2001), “Immigrant success in the knowledge economy: institutional change and the
immigrant experience in Canada, 1970-1995”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, pp. 579-613.
27,4 Riggio, R.E. (2008), Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 8th ed., Pearson, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Ryan, E.B., Hewstone, M. and Giles, H. (1984), “Language and intergroup attitudes”, in Eiser, J.
(Ed.), Attitudinal Judgment, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 135-50.
362 Sanchez, J.I. and Brock, P. (1996), “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic
employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 704-19.
Sebastian, R.J., Ryan, E.B., Keogh, T.F. and Schmidt, A.C. (1980), “The effects of negative affect
arousal on reactions to speakers”, in Giles, H., Robinson, W. and Smith, P.M. (Eds),
Language: Social Psychological Perspectives, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 203-8.
Stone, E.F., Stone, D.L. and Dipboye, R.L. (1992), “Stigmas in organizations: race, handicaps, and
physical unattractiveness”, in Kelly, K. (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 385-444.
Stone-Romero, E.F. and Stone, D.L. (2007), “Cognitive, affective, and cultural influences on
stigmatization: impact on human resource management processes and practices”,
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 26, pp. 117-67.
US Census Bureau (2008), “US Census Bureau News”, September 8, US Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC, available at: www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb08-ff15.pdf
(accessed August 16, 2010).
United States General Accounting Office (1990), Immigration Reform: Employer Sanctions and
the Question of Discrimination, No. 140974, United States General Accounting Office,
Gaithersburg, MD, p. 15, March, available at: http://archive.gao.gov/d24t8/140974.pdf
(accessed November 15, 2009).
Wells, S.J. (2008), “Say ¡hola! to the majority minority”, HR Magazine, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 38-43.

(See Appendix overleaf.)

Appendix 1. The effect of
Hispanic accents

363

Figure A1.
Items in the study’s
measures
JMP
27,4

364

Figure A1.

Appendix 2: Description of applicant

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering with a GPA of 2.8. I consider myself to be an
ambitious and motivated person. I like taking risks and will never back away from challenges. I
will do anything in my power to get what I want. Although I work well with a team, I prefer to
work independently. I can also manage multiple tasks at the same time. I am competitive and
strongly believe that competition is essential to one’s success. I admit that sometimes I leave
things to the last minute, but I do better under pressure. I desire to be self-efficient rather than
having others tell me what to do. I am searching for a job which will be challenging and offer
better growth opportunities. I strongly feel that I will be a great asset to your company.

About the authors

Megumi Hosoda is a Professor of Psychology at San José State University. She received her PhD
in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from the University at Albany – State University of
New York. Her research interests focus on social cognition, workplace diversity, and immigrants.
Megumi Hosoda is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: megumi.hosoda@sjsu.edu
Lam T. Nguyen is a Training and Development Specialist in Human Resources. He received
his Master’s degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from San José State University.
His research interests focus on the social, political and economic impact of racial diversity and
ethnic minorities in the workplace.
Eugene F. Stone-Romero is a Professor of Management at University of Texas at San
Antonio. He is a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the
Association for Psychological Science, and the American Psychological Association. He has
published over 60 refereed journal articles in such outlets as Journal of Applied Psychology,
Personnel Psychology, Organizational Research Methods, and Academy of Management Journal.
In addition, he has authored over 50 chapters in edited books.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints