Where Are You From? An Investigation Into the Intersectionality of Accent Strength and Nationality Status on Perceptions of Nonnative Speakers in Britain

Abstract

We explore how interpersonal and intergroup perceptions are affected by a nonnative speaker’s accent strength and the status of their home country. When nationality information was absent (Study 1), natives who heard a strong (vs. weak) accent rated the speaker as warmer but immigrants as a group as more threatening. This result was replicated when the speaker’s nationality was familiar (Study 2) but in this study, country status further shaped accent-based perceptions: the strong (vs. weak) accented speaker evoked more positive interpersonal perceptions when her country status was low, but more negative intergroup perceptions when her country status was high. When the status of the speaker’s nationality was manipulated (Study 3), we replicated the interpersonal perceptions found in Study 1 and the intergroup perceptions found in Study 2. Findings support a holistic approach to investigating perceptions of nonnative speakers: one that considers nationality as well as accent strength.

Keywords

accent perception interpersonal perceptions immigration intergroup relations communication

With immigration rising and increasing in diversity (OECD, 2013; Rosenmann et al., 2016), a significant language challenge facing the 21st century is the discrimination faced by nonnative speakers. To date, researchers have identified a number of areas where nonnative speakers are disadvantaged (Flowerdew, 2008; Frumkin, 2007; Hosoda et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2006). Despite this, laws rarely protect speakers from discrimination; in the United States, for instance, subjective evaluations of a nonnative accent as “incomprehensible” is enough to protect employers who deny jobs or promotions to nonnative speakers (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b; Lippi-Green, 1994; Nguyen, 1993; Rubin, 1992). To ultimately prevent these practices, it is important to understand the processes by which language-based discrimination develops.

Discrimination based on speech patterns is underpinned by social categorizations. Besides more obvious information such as gender or age, one’s accent can reveal clues to education level, socioeconomic status, and allegiances to groups (Giles & Marlow, 2011; Ryan, 1983). Speech patterns may be a stronger cue to social categorization than other out-group markers such as race (Kinzler et al., 2009; Pietraszewski & Schwartz, 2014; Rakić et al., 2011) with some accents more susceptible to negative categorizations than others (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010a). Perhaps because a nonnative accent marks a speaker as foreign-born (and therefore, a member of a potentially threatening out-group; Derwing & Munro, 2009; Esses et al., 2001), nonnative speakers are particularly vulnerable to negative perceptions (see Birney et al., 2020). Indeed, nonnative speakers have been rated as less intelligent (e.g., Lindemann, 2003), less loyal (e.g., Edwards, 1982), less competent (e.g., Boyd, 2003), and less trustworthy (e.g., Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010) than speakers with native accents (see Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b, for a review). Several systematic reviews of the literature on accent perceptions have also highlighted that across many contexts, less status and less solidarity tend to be attributed to nonnative accents as opposed to native ones, particularly if those accents are perceived to be strong (e.g., Fuertes et al., 2012; Giles & Watson, 2013).

One reason for these negative evaluations is that the presence of a nonnative accent introduces the possibility that the speaker is an immigrant, a group generally disliked by native populations (Kessler & Freeman, 2005). In the United Kingdom, for instance, 47% of white British respondents believed that immigration had damaged British society and 59% felt that immigrants had not made a positive contribution to Britain (BBC, 2009). At least in part because of these attitudes, over 75% of British citizens are in favor of reducing immigration (Blinder, 2013). Sentiments are similar in other parts of Europe (Card et al., 2012), and the United States (Fetzer, 2000) where about one third of Americans feel that immigration levels should be decreased (Gallup, 2019). Due to these negative perceptions, it is difficult to differentiate whether negative perceptions of a nonnative speaker are due to their accent or to the assumption that the speaker is an immigrant (see Nesdale & Rooney, 1996).

It is also unlikely that either nonnative speakers or immigrants are perceived as a homogenous group. Research has shown that native’s perceptions of immigrants can be shaped by the type of threat (e.g., cultural threat, safety fears) they associate with the specific immigrant group (Hellwig & Sinno, 2017). In addition, while weaker accents generally illicit more positive perceptions than stronger accents (Giles & Marlow, 2011; Gluszek et al., 2011; Nesdale & Rooney, 1996) these too can be shaped by factors such as whether specific accents are expected (Dragojevic et al., 2019; Hansen et al., 2017) and by the degree to which accents interfere with speech processing (Dovidio & Gluszek, 2012; Dragojevic et al., 2017). Hence, in addition to being inextricably linked, negative perceptions of both nonnative speakers and immigrants may be shaped by information related to these categories.

Because exposure to a nonnative accent can make salient the speaker’s immigrant identity, interactions between native and nonnative speakers are intergroup as much as they are interpersonal (Dragojevic & Giles, 2014). Yet few studies have investigated how perceptions of nonnative speakers are shaped by their status as an immigrant (and vice versa). In one exception, Nesdale and Rooney (1996) found that after exposing native speakers to various nonnative speech patterns, those aware of the speaker’s nationality based their perceptions on group stereotypes, while those unaware of this information based their impressions on the speaker’s accent strength. This suggests that how a speaker is categorized beyond the classification of foreign-born (and therefore, a possible immigrant) can play an important role in determining attributions native speakers attach to different accents (Dragojevic, 2016). Indeed, the question “where are you from?” that is generally asked by native speakers immediately after detecting nonnative speech patterns is arguably indicative of the desire for this information to shape ideas about the speaker (Lippi-Green, 1997).

In line with intersectionality theory (see Crenshaw, 1989), a person’s language identity and national identity should be recognized as integral to their lived experience, dynamic, and mutually dependent on one another and therefore, should influence speaker perceptions together (see Levon, 2015). As such, to understand how nonnative speakers are perceived, perceptions around the speaker’s national identity should be considered along with the strength of their accent. Hence, the aim of this article is to consider accent strength and nationality status as intersectional in terms of their combined impact on perceptions. Furthermore, we consider interpersonal perceptions of individual speakers and how these extend to attitudes toward immigrants as a group. We begin by summarizing past theory that help anticipate the effects of accent strength and nationality on how individuals and groups are perceived.

Theoretical Framework

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) posits that individuals are motivated to preserve a self-concept that is subjectively positive, and that for members of devalued groups this can be achieved through individual or collective actions. When boundaries between groups appear impermeable, devalued group members are likely to follow strategies of social competition or social creativity, depending on whether their status position is appraised as (il)legitimate and/or (un)stable (see Haslam, 2004, for an overview). If group boundaries are perceived to be permeable, and membership to the out-group attainable, individuals may employ a strategy of social mobility where they attempt to join the high-status group.

Speaking in a nonnative language can be interpreted as an act of social mobility. Native accents are considered the ideal way to speak a language (Sweeney & Hua, 2010) with native speakers often (unfairly) associating nonnative accents as indicative of an inability to wield a language fluently (Lippi-Green, 1997). The lucrative business of accent reduction classes (Lindemann, 2003) are demonstrative of the length that some nonnative speakers go in the hope of passing as a native speaker. There may also be an expectation that nonnative speakers should imitate native norms; in the United Kingdom, immigration policies emphasize assimilation, which includes the requirement for immigrants to speak a high standard of English (Joppke, 2004). Furthermore, as the higher status group relative to immigrants (Berry, 2006; Geschke et al., 2010), natives might generally expect a degree of accommodation toward native norms, particularly in the area of language (Giles, 2016).

Based on this, the strength of a speaker’s accent¹ may be used by natives to indicate whether the speaker is likely to join the native in-group, with weaker accents implying that chances of success are high and stronger accents implying that chances of success are low. Indeed, the meaning natives attach to a nonnative speaker’s accent strength may have consequences for how they are perceived. For instance, while linguistic out-groups have been rated as low on both competence and warmth (Fuertes et al., 2012), ratings of immigrant groups tend to be higher on one of these dimensions than the other, depending in part on stereotypes associated with their nationality and socioeconomic status (Lee & Fiske, 2006). This again suggests that when natives form impressions, markers of an immigrant identity (e.g., the presence of a nonnative accent and the degree of accent strength) is likely considered in conjunction with information about that person’s background.

However, whether natives actually want a nonnative speaking out-group member to permeate group boundaries may not be straight forward. On the one hand, research has suggested that weak accents result in more positive perceptions of the nonnative speaker than strong accents (Giles & Marlow, 2011; Gluszek et al., 2011). Weak accents may also indicate accommodation toward native norms, which can have a number of positive consequences for the speaker including higher ratings of competence, warmth, attractiveness, and cooperation (Giles & Marlow, 2011). On the other hand, much of the research on accent perception fails to consider other factors such as the speaker’s race or ethnicity on how impressions are made (Fuertes et al., 2012). Even the weakest, most accommodated nonnative accent marks the speaker as a (potential) immigrant. Accordingly, high-status group members may feel stressed when they detect changes to the status quo (Scheepers, 2009; Scheepers et al., 2009), which may include changes to in-group norms and culture due to an inflow of immigrants from different backgrounds. Stress levels may be particularly poignant if group members fear the denigration of their group’s standards (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005), a fear that is relevant to native’s concerns about immigration (Esses et al., 2001). Since nonnative accents mark the speaker as an immigrant while also making group membership salient, it is possible for perceptions of nonnative speech to translate to feelings of threat from immigrants as a group.

Drawing from integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000), we propose that real or perceived threat due to competition (i.e., realistic threat) and to value conflicts (i.e., symbolic threat) may be relevant when considering perceptions of nonnative speakers. To succeed in a new country, immigrants need to secure jobs and access resources. At the same time, their varying backgrounds make cultural differences between themselves and host country natives inevitable (Stephan et al., 2005). As a result, immigrants may face incompatible demands at both economic and sociocultural levels. Economically, immigrants who are not successful may be looked on as a drain on resources, while those who do reach a level of success risk being perceived as having done so at the expense of natives. Socially, immigrants who successfully integrate may be seen as diluting or altering the host culture, therefore threatening the positive distinctiveness of the dominant group. Those who maintain their cultural practices may also be perceived as a threat to the host country identity if they are perceived as rejecting dominant cultural values (Esses et al., 2001).

Because exposure to a nonnative accent can make intergroup threat salient, natives may be motivated to seek further information about the speaker to determine what the presence of a strong or a weak accent mean for their group. Hence, we propose that the answer to the common question “where are you from?” is used to influence the meaning natives attach to a speaker’s accent. Importantly, we also theorize that the process of forming interpersonal perceptions (based on accent strength and nationality) can shape attitudes toward the group that the nonnative speaker is often presumed to symbolize (e.g., immigrants). For instance, if a nonnative speaker is believed to be from a low-status country, natives might prefer a strong accent, as this lowers their chances of permeating group boundaries. However, nonnative speakers believed to be from high-status countries may be seen as a potential asset to the in-group and therefore, natives may feel more positively toward these immigrants when they speak with an accent that indicates a degree of accommodation to native norms (e.g., a weak accent). We also expect that perceptions of one nonnative speaker (based on their accent strength and home country status) can make intergroup threat salient, specifically in the form of realistic and symbolic threat.

Overview of Studies and General Procedure

We begin by considering whether perceptions of one nonnative speaker based on her accent strength can extend to intergroup attitudes (Study 1) before considering whether these perceptions can be moderated by the perceived status of nationalities that are familiar (Study 2) and unfamiliar (Study 3).

Participants

Participants consisted of university students or members of the public who were offered course credit or a prize for taking part. All were native English speakers who identified themselves as White British and were recruited via an e-mail or in person inviting them to take part in a study investigating interpersonal perceptions. All participants were recruited from university towns in the United Kingdom where the population is primarily White British.

Materials and Procedure

The studies took place in a lab. Participants were asked to listen to a recording from “Sophia” speaking about her journey to the United Kingdom in either a weak accent or a strong accent. These recordings were selected based on the results of a pilot study of 15 different speakers (see supplemental material online). Two recordings emerged that were similarly likeable, similarly ambiguous in terms of the speaker’s origin, but where ratings of accent strength were significantly different. The weak accent recording was spoken by a woman from Romania, and the strong accent recording was spoken by a woman from Armenia. To encourage participants to base their perceptions of Sophia solely on her accent strength, the recordings’ content was written to be mundane and to reveal nothing about the speaker’s background. The following text is an excerpt from the script Sophia followed (see supplemental material online for the complete text).

I arrived in Heathrow to a very busy airport. People were walking in all different directions and all seemed to be in a hurry. The queue for customs and the wait for my bags seemed to take forever!

After listening to the recording, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that assessed their impressions of Sophia. Following this, participants were told that researchers were interested in their opinions on various social issues and that they had been “randomly” allocated the issue of immigration (i.e., intergroup attitudes measures). Participants were then fully debriefed and thanked for their time.

Measurement and Analysis

All measures used 7-point Likert-type scale. Dependent variables for the interpersonal perception measures included six items measuring similarity to the speaker (e.g., “Sophia seems very similar to me”) and three items measuring overall attitudes toward her (e.g., “Sophia seems like someone I would typically become friends with”). We also measured perceptions of the speaker as warm (i.e., warmth, tolerance, sincerity, and being good natured) and competent (i.e., competent, confident, intelligent, and independent; see Fiske et al., 2002).

To assess intergroup attitudes, 14 items adapted from previously tested scales (Maddux et al., 2008; Stephan et al., 1999) were used to measure realistic threat (e.g., “Non-British people have more economic power than they deserve in this country”), while 4 items adapted from a scale created by Stephan et al. (1999) measured symbolic threat (e.g., “British culture is changing because of non-British people who live in the U.K.”). Five items assessed participants’ attitudes toward immigrants (e.g., respect). Full scales are listed in the online supplemental material. In all studies, univariate analyses of variance were used to investigate the effect of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variables.

Study 1

We test whether native speakers’ interpersonal perceptions and intergroup attitudes differ depending on whether they hear a weak or a strong accent. We expect the following:

Hypothesis 1.1: Native speakers exposed to the strong accent will report less positive attitudes toward the speaker and perceive less similarities with her than those exposed to the weak accent.

Hypothesis 1.2: Native speakers exposed to the strong accent will report higher ratings of the speaker as warm, while those exposed to the weak accent will report higher ratings of the speaker as competent.

Based on our expectation that exposure to a nonnative accent can make intergroup threat salient, we also test whether language-based impressions of the speaker can extend to perceptions of that speaker’s group (i.e., immigrants). Because a strong accent signals less accommodation to in-group (i.e., British) norms than weak accents, we expect the following:

Hypothesis 1.3: Native speakers exposed to the strong accent will report more intergroup threat from immigrants than those exposed to the weak accent.

Hypothesis 1.4: Native speakers exposed to the weak accent will have more positive attitudes toward immigrants than those exposed to the strong accent.

Method

Participants and Design

Thirty-seven women and 31 men took part in the study (M_age = 20.98, SD = 6.38). The study used a between-subjects design with two experimental conditions (strong accent vs. weak accent).

Materials

Dependent variables measuring interpersonal perceptions included participants’ perceived similarity to the speaker (α = .91), general attitudes toward her (α = .60), perceived warmth (α = .78) and competence (α = .70). Dependent variables measuring intergroup attitudes included realistic threat (α = .87), symbolic threat (α = .74), and attitudes toward immigrants (α = .87).

Procedure

Participants were told they would be listening to a brief recording from Sophia, who had recently arrived in United Kingdom. They were then told that they would be asked a series of questions based on their impressions of Sophia followed by questions assessing their opinions on a social issue. After agreeing to take part, participants were randomly allocated to listen to the strong accent or the weak accent recording before starting the questionnaire.

Results and Discussion

Means and standard deviations can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables (Study 1).

	Accent strength
	Weak		Strong
	M	SD	M	SD
Similarity	3.88	1.03	4.00	1.16
Positive attitude (speaker)	4.95	0.87	4.90	1.09
Competence	5.72	0.73	5.71	0.69
Warmth	4.80*	0.89	5.51*	0.69
Realistic threat	2.72	0.97	2.74	0.87
Symbolic threat	4.25*	1.20	4.86*	1.16
Positive attitude (immigrants)	5.84	0.98	5.59	0.99

Note. Cells with asterisks (per line) are significantly different (p < .05).

Interpersonal Perceptions

There was no effect of accent strength on perceptions of similarity or competence, or on overall attitudes toward the speaker, Fs < 0.23, ps > .633. However, participants exposed to the strong accent rated the speaker as more warm than those exposed to the weak accent, F(1, 65) = 13.00, p = .001, η_p² = .167, which is consistent with previous research showing that speakers with accents considered more nonnormative tend to be perceived as less competitive (Fiske et al., 2002).

Intergroup Attitudes

Participants exposed to the strong accent reported more symbolic threat from immigrants than participants exposed to the weak accent, F(1, 66) = 4.54, p = .037, η_p² = .064. There was no effect of accent strength on realistic threat or on attitudes toward immigrants, Fs < 1.03, ps > .317.

Although not all hypotheses were supported, this study provides initial evidence that a speaker’s accent strength can go beyond affecting interpersonal perceptions and influence attitudes toward the group that speaker represents. Accent strength seems to affect these interpersonal and intergroup outcomes in opposite directions: on the one hand resulting in perceptions of Sophia as warm, while on the other triggering perceptions of immigrants as symbolically threatening.

However, because natives did not have information about where the nonnative speaker was from (nor did they have the opportunity to seek out this information), this study may not have provided a realistic example of the way in which natives form impressions based on accent. In the next study, we include nationality in the design.

Study 2

A country’s status is generally judged against socioeconomic factors (Janevic et al., 2012), where resources are seen as more available to individuals from high-status countries than to those from low-status countries. Immigrants from low-status countries may be perceived as more motivated to compete for in-group resources than immigrants from high-status countries. However, whether immigrants are perceived as likely to be successful in obtaining in-group resources may depend on their accent strength, with weak accents indicating that success is likely and strong accents indicating that success is unlikely. We propose that how these factors interact (i.e., nationality status and accent strength) will have repercussions for how natives perceive individual nonnative speakers and immigrants as a group.

In this study, we use two European countries with varying statuses within the United Kingdom: British nationals were either told that the speaker is from Poland (low-status nationality) or the Netherlands (high-status nationality) before hearing her speak with a weak accent or a strong accent (see supplemental material online for the pretest of status associations).

Hypothesis 2.1: When the speaker is from Poland (the Netherlands), natives will report more positive attitudes toward her and more similarities with her when her accent is strong (weak) instead of weak (strong).

Hypothesis 2.2: When the speaker is from Poland (the Netherlands), natives will rate her as lower (higher) in competence and higher (lower) in warmth when her accent is strong (weak) instead of weak (strong).

Hypothesis 2.3: When the speaker is from Poland (the Netherlands), natives will report more intergroup threat when her accent is weak (strong) instead of strong (weak).

Hypothesis 2.3: When the speaker is from Poland (the Netherlands), natives will report more positive attitudes toward immigrants when her accent is strong (weak) instead of weak (strong).

Method

Participants and Design

Twenty-nine women and 51 men took part in the study (M_age = 23.72, SD = 8.98). The study used a 2 × 2 between-subjects design with accent strength (strong vs. weak) and nationality status (Poland vs. the Netherlands) as variables.

Materials and Procedure

Dependent variables measuring interpersonal perceptions included participants’ perceived similarities with the speaker (α = .88), general attitudes toward her (α = .78), perceived competence (α = .71) and warmth (α = .78). Dependent variables measuring intergroup attitudes included realistic threat (α = .91), symbolic threat (α = .55), and attitudes toward immigrants (α = .83). The procedure was identical to that in Study 1 except that participants were told that Sophia had recently arrived in the United Kingdom from either Poland or from the Netherlands.

Results and Discussion

Means and standard deviations can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for all Dependent Variables (Study 2).

	Accent strength		The Netherlands			Poland
	Weak	Strong	Weak	Strong	Total	Weak	Strong	Total
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Similarity	3.76 (1.13)	3.88 (1.04)	3.93 (1.06)	3.51^a (1.17)	3.72 (1.12)	3.60^ (1.20)	4.24^a^ (0.77)	3.92 (1.04)
Positive attitude (speaker)	4.26^a (1.09)	4.90^a (0.96)	4.47 (1.01)	4.68 (1.14)	4.58 (1.07)	4.05^b (1.15)	5.12^b (0.70)	4.58 (1.09)
Competence	5.87 (0.66)	5.86 (0.60)	5.93 (0.77)	5.80 (0.58)	5.86 (0.68)	5.81 (0.55)	5.93 (0.64)	5.87 (0.59)
Warmth	5.03 (0.88)	5.17 (0.80)	5.08 (1.07)	5.13 (0.81)	5.10 (0.93)	4.98 (0.67)	5.21 (0.82)	5.09 (0.75)
Realistic threat	2.59^a (0.97)	3.08^a (1.00)	2.44 (0.76)	2.93 (1.00)	2.68 (0.90)	2.74 (1.15)	3.23 (1.01)	2.98 (1.10)
Symbolic threat	4.23 (1.06)	4.31 (0.97)	3.93^⁺ (1.11)	4.48⁺ (0.92)	4.20 (1.04)	4.54^ (0.94)	4.15 (1.01)	4.34 (0.98)
Positive attitude (immigrants)	5.53 (1.03)	5.43 (0.97)	5.85^{a b} (0.71)	5.23^b (1.03)	5.54 (0.93)	5.21^a (1.21)	5.64 (0.86)	5.42 (1.06)

Note. Cells with the same letters in the superscript (per line) are significantly different (p < .05). Cells with the same symbols in the superscript (per line) are marginally significant (p < .10).

Interpersonal Perceptions

As expected, nationality status moderated the effect of accent strength on perceived similarity with the speaker, F(1, 76) = 4.89, p = .030, η_p² = .06: when participants were told that the speaker was from Poland, there was a tendency to report more similarities with her when her accent was strong than when her accent was weak, F(1, 76) = 3.65, p = .060, η_p² = .05. The interaction between accent strength and status on attitudes approached significance, F(1, 76) = 3.49, p = .066, η_p² = .04, with participants told that the speaker was from Poland expressing marginally more positive attitudes toward her when exposed to the strong accent as opposed to the weak accent, F(1, 76) = 10.98, p = .001, η_p² = .13. There was no effect of accent strength on similarity or on attitudes when the speaker was from the Netherlands, Fs < 1.48, ps > .228.

Despite previous research and the common trope that “immigrants to the United Kingdom must speak English,” weak accents may not always be preferred. Consistent with the literature on identity threat (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005), natives might have felt more favorably toward the speaker from a low-status country when she spoke with an accent that was likely to cement her out-group status (i.e., a strong accent). However, these results did not always reach significance, possibly due to the relatively low sample size used in this study. Therefore, it is important to replicate these effects independently before drawing definite conclusions based on this data.

Unlike in Study 1, there were no effects of accent strength or nationality status on perceptions of competence or warmth. This may have been due to the possibility that information about the speaker cancelled each of these perceptions out; when Sophia was from Poland, the fact that she was travelling to the United Kingdom might have made her seem competent, regardless of how she spoke. When she was from the Netherlands, perceptions of her high-status nationality (and therefore, her competence) may have endured in both the strong and weak accent conditions.

Intergroup Attitudes

As expected, there was a significant interaction between accent strength and status on feelings of symbolic threat, F(1, 76) = 4.43, p = .039, η_p² = .06; when the speaker was from the Netherlands, participants reported marginally more threat when her accent was strong as opposed to when her accent was weak, F(1, 76) = 3.05, p = .085, η_p² = .04. The interaction between accent strength and status on attitudes toward immigrants was also significant, F(1, 75) = 5.76, p = .019, η_p² = .071; when the speaker was from the Netherlands, participants had more positive attitudes toward immigrants when her accent was weak instead of strong, F(1, 75) = 4.05, p = .048, η_p² = .05. Hence, it may be that the desire for others to speak in a way that is similar to native norms (weak accents) only applies when the speaker is from a country perceived as having the potential benefit to the in-group (i.e., does not need to compete for resources). There were no effects on the dependent variables when the speaker was from Poland, Fs < 1.92, ps >.170.

Additional Results

While not predicted, there was a main effect of accent strength on attitudes toward the speaker, F(1, 76) = 7.96, p = .006, η_p² = .095, and on realistic threat, F(1, 75) = 4.86, p = .031, η_p² = .061: Participants exposed to the strong accent reported more positive perceptions of the speaker but more realistic threat from immigrants than participants exposed to the weak accent. This is consistent with previous work indicating that accents can evoke perceptions that are independent of other factors (Lindemann, 2003; Nesdale & Rooney, 1996; Ryan, 1983) and demonstrates the power of language to influence not only ideas about the speaker, but beliefs about groups. Like in Study 1, where the strong accent evoked perceptions of the speaker as warm but perceptions of immigrants as threatening, these results exemplify the ambiguous nature of the associations attached to patterns of speech: while the speaker was accepted when her speech was dissimilar to native norms (i.e., strong accent), the prospect of her group using nonnative speech patterns was less appealing. Hence, while strongly accented individuals may not be perceived as personally competitive, the idea of all immigrants using these speech patterns may make the prospect of intergroup competition salient.

Limitations

The results indicate that the status of a speaker’s national group may play a critical role in shaping how native speakers form impressions of speakers with nonnative accents. However, although results from the pilot study showed that within the EU Poland was considered low in status and the Netherlands was considered high in status (see supplemental material online), it is possible that the results were influenced by additional stereotypes about people from these countries. The high number of Polish immigrants living in Britain and the close physical proximity of the Netherlands to the United Kingdom mean that these places are generally familiar to our participant sample. In addition, the Netherlands have been an ally of the U.K.’s over the past century, while Poland’s socialist history, and controversial entry into the EU, may mark it as an adversary. One explanation for the lack of an effect of accent strength on perceptions of warmth and competence may have been that that these stereotypes were not consistent with participants’ preconceived ideas about people from these countries. This also might explain why the interactions observed were mainly partial (e.g., accent strength affected interpersonal perceptions when the speaker was from Poland but not when she was from the Netherlands). A direction for future research might be to measure initial attitudes toward these immigrant groups to see how they might be shaped by the exposure to varying degrees of accent strength.

Study 3

To more cleanly test the effect of nationality status on accent-based impressions, we manipulate the status of Andorra, a relatively unfamiliar country in the United Kingdom (see supplemental material online for pretesting). We use the same rationale and make the same predictions as in Study 2:

Hypothesis 3.1: When the speaker is from low (high) status Andorra, natives will report more positive attitudes toward her and more similarities with when her accent is strong (weak) instead of weak (strong).

Hypothesis 3.2: When the speaker is from low- (high-) status Andorra, natives will rate her as lower (higher) in competence and higher (lower) in warmth when her accent is strong (weak) instead of weak (strong).

Hypothesis 3.3: When the speaker is from low- (high-) status Andorra, natives will report more intergroup threat when her accent is weak (strong) instead of strong (weak).

Hypothesis 3.4: When the speaker is from low- (high-) status Andorra, natives will report more positive attitudes toward immigrants when her accent is strong (weak) instead of weak (strong).

Method

Participants and Design

Eighty-two women and 46 men took part in the study (M_age = 26.68, SD = 9.22). The study used a 2 × 2 between-subjects design with accent strength (strong vs. weak) and nationality status (low vs. high) as variables.

Materials

Dependent variables measuring interpersonal perceptions included participants’ perceived similarities with the speaker (α = .92), general attitudes toward her (α = .79), perceived competence (α = .80) and warmth (α = .87). Dependent variables measuring intergroup attitudes included realistic threat (α = .90), symbolic threat (α = .70), and attitudes toward immigrants (α = .81).

Procedure

The procedure was identical to the previous studies except that participants were told that Sophia had recently arrived in the United Kingdom from Andorra. They then read some general information about Andorra that served as the status manipulation (see supplemental material online for complete texts). In the low- (high-) status condition, Andorran people who travel to the United Kingdom, were described as economic (cultural) migrants who are looking for work (a new experience). Andorran immigrants were also described as either coming to the United Kingdom to seek a better life (low-status condition) or for tourism (high-status condition). In the low-status condition, the information given about Andorra aimed to mirror stereotypes about Polish immigrants (i.e., that they come to the United Kingdom for jobs), while in the high-status condition, this information aimed to mirror stereotypes about Dutch immigrants (i.e., they are in the United Kingdom to experience British culture). Following this, participants were randomly allocated to listen to Sophia speak with either a strong accent or a weak accent before beginning the questionnaire.

Results and Discussion

Means and standard deviations can be found in Table 3.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Measures (Study 3).

	Accent strength		High-status Andorra			Low-status Andorra
	Weak	Strong	Weak	Strong	Total	Weak	Strong	Total
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Similarity	4.16 (1.14)	4.21 (1.02)	4.30 (1.25)	4.17 (1.13)	4.32 (1.18)	4.03 (1.03)	4.25 (0.92)	4.14 (0.98)
Positive attitude (speaker)	4.90 (1.11)	5.05 (1.06)	4.95 (1.05)	4.90 (1.18)	4.92 (1.11)	4.85 (1.19)	5.21 (0.92)	5.03 (1.07)
Competence	5.57 (0.67)	5.60 (0.81)	5.64 (0.66)	5.62 (0.91)	5.63 (0.79)	5.51 (0.68)	5.59 (0.72)	5.55 (0.69)
Warmth	4.86^a (0.95)	5.31^a (0.90)	4.87 (0.95)	5.38 (0.98)	5.13 (0.99)	4.84 (1.04)	5.23 (0.83)	5.04 (0.95)
Realistic threat	2.16 (0.80)	2.33 (0.88)	2.00 (0.83)	2.52 (0.80)	2.26 (0.85)	2.33 (0.74)	2.15 (0.92)	2.24 (0.84)
Symbolic threat	3.86 (1.09)	4.02 (1.03)	3.59 (1.17)	4.21 (0.86)	3.90 (1.07)	4.14 (0.94)	3.82 (1.16)	3.98 (1.06)
Positive attitude (immigrants)	6.02 (0.80)	6.09 (0.86)	6.16 (0.74)	6.05 (0.80)	6.11 (0.77)	5.88 (0.84)	6.13 (0.93)	6.00 (0.89)

Note. Cells with the same letters in the superscript (per line) are significantly different (p < .05). Cells with the same symbols (per line) are marginally significant (p < .10).

Interpersonal Perceptions

Replicating Study 1, participants exposed to the strong accent rated the speaker as more warm than those exposed to the weak accent, F(1, 124) = 7.27, p = .008, η_p² = .76. No other effects were significant Fs < 1.12, ps > .295.

Intergroup Attitudes

There was a significant interaction between accent strength and nationality status on symbolic threat, F(1, 123) = 6.37, p = .013, η_p² = .71. Replicating Study 2, participants told that the speaker’s nationality is high in status reported more symbolic threat when the speaker’s accent was strong instead of weak, F(1, 123) = 5.61, p = .019, η_p² = .65. A similar interaction pattern emerged for realistic threat, F(1, 121) = 5.58, p = .020, η_p² = .65: participants in the high-status nationality condition reported more realistic threat from immigrants when her accent was strong rather than weak, F(1, 121) = 6.12, p = .015, η_p² = .69. As in Study 2, these results suggest that when the nonnative speaker represents a high-status out-group, and therefore has the capacity to contribute to the in-group, participants feel less threatened by immigrants generally when the speaker’s speech patterns are more consistent with in-group norms (i.e., the weak accent). Unlike in Study 2, there was no effect on attitudes toward immigrants generally, Fs < 1.49, ps > .224.

General Discussion

The studies reported in this article demonstrate (a) the importance of a nonnative speaker’s national identity in terms of how they are perceived and (b) that exposure to one nonnative speaker can shape attitudes toward a diverse group. When the speaker’s nationality was unknown (Study 1) or ambiguous (Study 3) natives seem to rely more heavily on accent strength to form interpersonal perceptions: replicating previous research showing that linguistic out-groups tend not to be considered as competitive (Fiske et al., 2002; Fuertes et al., 2012), natives in these studies rated the strong accented speaker as warm. However, when the speaker’s nationality was familiar (Study 2), the strong accented speaker was more preferred when she was from a low rather than a high-status country. In line with previous work (Lee & Fiske, 2006; Nesdale & Rooney, 1996), it is possible that the more familiarity natives have with a nonnative speaker’s nationality, the more they draw on this knowledge to form impressions.

Our work also demonstrates that perceptions based on accents can shape intergroup relations. In Study 1, just hearing a strong accent (with no information about nationality) was enough to make immigrants seem threatening. When information about nationality was available, accent strength primarily affected natives’ impressions of speakers from high-status countries: in both Study 2 and Study 3, natives report more intergroup threat when the speaker with these nationalities spoke with a strong accent. One reason these effects were concentrated in the high-status condition may lie in the fact that our participant sample consisted mostly of upper middle-class university students, who likely expect to work in high-status professions. Because many low-status immigrants to the United Kingdom work in jobs that are unlikely to be sought after by university graduates (i.e., service or construction industries) and tend to run in separate social circles, these participants may not have perceived the low-status immigrant out-group as either threatening their prospects (i.e., realistic threat) or as able to alter their social world, even if the speaker did demonstrate an ability to compete (i.e., by speaking with a weak accent). Therefore, a direction for future research would be to use a participant sample with jobs and prospects that are lower in status to see if an opposite pattern of results emerges.

Although our results support our expectation that a speaker’s nationality status impacts on how nonnative accents are perceived, we have only scratched the surface of the processes at play when native and nonnative speakers interact. For instance, there may have been an element of surprise that the speaker from a high-status nationality spoke with a strong accent, helping explain natives’ negative evaluations of immigrants in this condition (see Hansen et al., 2017). Natives might also be aware of the stigma associated with immigrants from low-status countries, and therefore be less willing to express opinions that might be interpreted as contributing toward that stigma (see Roessel et al., 2020). In addition, the fact that the strong accent resulted in more positive interpersonal perceptions but more realistic threat from immigrants in the only study where the speaker’s nationality was familiar indicates that additional factors not picked up by our measures may have helped fuel these perceptions. Therefore, we see these studies as a starting point for exploring the process of impression formation that occurs when natives detect a nonnative accent and then inquire where the speaker is from.

Conclusion

With increasing numbers of people speaking a nonnative language, one of the most pressing language challenges for the 21st century is to create a fairer world for speakers with nonnative accents. For too long research on accent perception has been narrow, focusing primarily on perceptions related to the strength of a speaker’s accent and ignoring the identities that speaking with a nonnative accent is inextricably tied to. Given the many contexts in which native and nonnative speakers interact and the diversity of identities that nonnative speakers have, this is no doubt a complex issue to tackle. However, one way to approach this challenge is for researchers to ensure that their work is as comprehensive and as ecologically valid as possible. To do this, researchers should consider the way that accents are related to and impact on other identities that are likely to shape the way nonnative speakers are perceived and treated.

We argue that in the case of nonnative speakers, identity should be treated as intersectional, with nationality (and their often-associated identity as an immigrant) considered when attempting to understand the way that accent-based impressions are formed. Furthermore, as these identities are group-based as much as they are individual, perceptions based on accents should be considered intergroup as well as interpersonal. In today’s global world, it is only through a comprehensive understanding of what drives the way that nonnative speakers are perceived that we can aim to decrease the discrimination faced by speakers with nonnative accents.

Supplemental Material

JLSP-SI-103_SOM_FINAL – Supplemental material for Where Are You From? An Investigation Into the Intersectionality of Accent Strength and Nationality Status on Perceptions of Nonnative Speakers in Britain

Supplemental material, JLSP-SI-103_SOM_FINAL for Where Are You From? An Investigation Into the Intersectionality of Accent Strength and Nationality Status on Perceptions of Nonnative Speakers in Britain by Megan E. Birney, Anna Rabinovich and Thomas A. Morton in Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Robert Kerr and Sam Ashcroft for their help with data collection. We would also like to thank Tamara Rakić, Janin Roessel, and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a PhD studentship from the University of Exeter and from an internal grant awarded by the University of Chester to the first author.

ORCID iD

Megan E. Birney

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Megan E. Birney is a senior lecturer in the Applied Psychology Group at University Centre Shrewsbury (University of Chester), United Kingdom. Her research interests include social stigma, identity processes, interpersonal and intergroup relations, communication, and obedience.

Anna Rabinovich is a senior lecturer in social psychology at the University of Exeter, United Kingdom. Her research interests are centered on group processes, attitude and behavior change, social influence, understanding and perception of science, time perspective, and communication.

Thomas A. Morton is an associate professor of social psychology at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. His research interests center on the ways in which identity is experienced and expressed in response to the symbolic and material properties of social and physical environments.

References

BBC. (May, 2009). The results. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/survey.stm

Berry

J. W.

(2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 719-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.004

Birney

M. E.

Rabinovich

Morton

T. A.

Heath

Ashcroft

(2020). When speaking English is not enough: The consequences of language-based stigma for nonnative speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(1), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19883906

Blinder

(2013). Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of “immigrants” in public opinion and policy debates in Britain. Political Studies, 63(1), 80-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12053

Boyd

(2003). Foreign-born teachers in the multilingual classroom in Sweden: The role of attitudes to foreign accent. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3-4), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050308667786

Card

Dustmann

Preston

(2012). Immigration, wages, and compositional amenities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(1), 78-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01051.x

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum (PhilPapers), 140, 139-167.

Derwing

T. M.

Munro

M. J.

(2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476-490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480800551X

Dovidio

J. F.

Gluszek

(2012). Accents, nonverbal behavior, and intergroup bias. In Giles

(Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 87-99). Routledge.

10.

Dragojevic

(2016). Language attitudes as intergroup terrain. In Giles

Maass

(Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 51-66). Peter Lang.

11.

Dragojevic

Giles

(2014). Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In Berger

C. R.

(Ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 29-51). De Gruyter Mouton.

12.

Dragojevic

Giles

Beck

Tatum

N. T.

(2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1322213

13.

Dragojevic

Tatum

N. T.

Beck

McAninch

(2019). Effects of accent strength expectancy violations on language attitudes. Communication Studies, 70(2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1526815

14.

Edwards

(1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In Ryan

E. B.

Giles

(Eds.), Attitudes toward language variation: Social and applied contexts (pp. 20-33). Edward Arnold.

15.

Esses

V. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Jackson

L. M.

Armstrong

T. L.

(2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 389-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00220

16.

Fetzer

J. S.

(2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France and Germany. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

Glick

(2002). (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

18.

Flowerdew

(2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002

19.

Frumkin

(2007). Influences of accent and ethnic background on perceptions of eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(3), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600822246

20.

Fuertes

J. N.

Gottdiener

W. H.

Martin

Gilbert

T. C.

Giles

(2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.862

21.

Gallup. (2019). Immigration. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

22.

Geschke

Mummendey

Kessler

Funke

(2010). Majority members’ acculturation goals as predictors and effects of attitudes and behaviors towards migrants. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 489-506. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X470544

23.

Giles

(Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relation-ships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press.

24.

Giles

Marlow

M. L.

(2011). Theorizing language attitudes existing frameworks, an integrative model, and new directions. Annals of the International Communication Association, 35(1), 161-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2011.11679116

25.

Giles

Watson

(Eds.). (2013). The social meanings of language, dialect, and accent: International perspectives on speech styles. Peter Lang.

26.

Gluszek

Dovidio

J. F.

(2010a). Speaking with a non-native accent: Perceptions of bias, communication difficulties, and belonging in the United States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359590

27.

Gluszek

Dovidio

J. F.

(2010b). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 214-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288

28.

Gluszek

Newheiser

A. K.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2011). Social psychological orientations and accent strength. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10387100

29.

Hansen

Rakić

Steffens

M. C.

(2017). Competent and warm? How mismatching appearance and accent influence first impressions. Experimental Psychology, 64(1), https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000348

30.

Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Psychology in organizations. Sage.

31.

Hellwig

Sinno

(2017). Different groups, different threats: Public attitudes towards immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2016.1202749

32.

Hosoda

Nguyen

L. T.

Stone-Romero

E. F.

(2012). The effect of Hispanic accents on employment decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(4), 347-364. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/02683941211220162

33.

Janevic

Pallas

S. W.

Ismayilova

Bradley

E. H.

(2012). Individual and community level socioeconomic inequalities in contraceptive use in 10 newly independent states: A multilevel cross-sectional analysis. International Journal for Equity in Health, 11(69). https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-11-69

34.

Joppke

(2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00017

35.

Kessler

A. E.

Freeman

G. P.

(2005). Public opinion in the EU on immigration from outside the community. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(4), 825-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2005.00598

36.

Kinzler

K. D.

Shutts

DeJesus

Spelke

E. S.

(2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27(4), 623-634. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623

37.

Lee

T. L.

Fiske

S. T.

(2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 751-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.005

38.

Lev-Ari

Keysar

(2010). Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093-1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025

39.

Levon

(2015). Integrating intersectionality in language, gender, and sexuality research. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(7), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12147

40.

Lindemann

(2003). Koreans, Chinese or Indians? Attitudes and ideologies about non-native English speakers in the United States. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 348-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00228

41.

Lippi-Green

(1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23(2), 163-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017826

42.

Lippi-Green

(1997). English with accents: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.

43.

Maddux

W. W.

Galinsky

A. D.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Polifroni

(2008). When being a model minority is good . . . and bad: Realistic threat explains negativity toward Asian Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207309195

44.

Nesdale

Rooney

(1996). Evaluations and stereotyping of accented speakers by pre-adolescent children. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(2), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960152002

45.

Nguyen

B. B.-D.

(1993). Accent discrimination and the test of spoken English: A call for an objective assessment of the comprehensibility of non-native speakers. California Law Review, 81(5), 1325-1361. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480920

46.

OECD. (2013). International migration outlook 2013 (Technical report). Author.

47.

Pietraszewski

Schwartz

(2014). Evidence that accent is a dedicated dimension of social categorization, not a byproduct of coalitional categorization. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.005

48.

Rakić

Steffens

M. C.

Mummendey

(2011). Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021522

49.

Roessel

Schoel

Stahlberg

(2020). Modern notions of accent-ism: Findings, conceptualizations, and implications for interventions and research on nonnative accents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19884619

50.

Rosenmann

Reese

Cameron

J. E.

(2016). Social identities in a globalized world: Challenges and opportunities for collective action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621272

51.

Rubin

D. L.

(1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511-531. https://doi.org/0.1007/BF00973770

52.

Ryan

E. B.

(1983). Social psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker evaluations of nonnative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004824

53.

Scheepers

(2009). Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular reactivity during inter-group competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 228-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.011

54.

Scheepers

Ellemers

(2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high-status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.mn2004.06.002

55.

Scheepers

Ellemers

Sintemaartensdijk

(2009). Suffering from the possibility of status loss: Physiological responses to social identity threat in high status groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1075-1092. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.609

56.

Stephan

W. G.

Renfro

C. L.

Esses

V. M.

Stephan

C. W.

Martin

(2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes towards immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.011

57.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 409-426. http://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00026-0

58.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-45). Lawrence Eribaum Associates Publishers.

59.

Stephan

W. G.

Ybarra

Bachman

(1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221-2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.1999.tb00107

60.

Sweeney

Hua

(2010). Accommodating toward your audience: Do native speakers of English know how to accommodate their communication strategies toward nonnative speakers of English? The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 47(4), 477-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377308

61.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Brooks/Cole.

62.

Zhao

Ondrich

Yinger

(2006). Why do real estate brokers continue to discriminate? Evidence from the 2000 housing discrimination study. Journal of Urban Economics, 59(3), 394-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2005.12.001

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB