A Quantitative Methods to Determine the Influence of Accent on Person Perception - Research Paper Example

A Quantitative Research Methods to Determine the Influence of Accent on Person Perception Objective After conducting the experiment, the difference had been analysed between the mean ratings for both accents reflecting on people’s personality and behaviour in Yorkshire and with Received Pronunciation (R.P.). Result With regard to the competence ratings, we can accept the first hypothesis because the results are significant, and that it followed the direction predicted. On the contrary, based on the social attractiveness ratings, we cannot accept the results because these are not significant, and that they did not follow the predicted direction. Design Questionnaire rating scale was used to conduct the experiment. It gave the participants a guide of what should have been evaluated based on the recorded instruction. Accent is the independent variable, while Competence, and Social Attractiveness ratings are the dependent variables. Methods The experiment was participated by ___ people. They were selected through ____. The participants were asked to listen to a voice recording, and afterwards they rated what they have heard according to the questionnaire given. Result The result is significant to experiment hypothesis 1, while the result is not significant to experiment hypothesis 2. Conclusion In conclusion, the variation of the results does not hold a strong account that person perception is influenced by accent. Introduction Background of the Study The influence of accent in a person’s perception had been the topic of many Psychologists, and the results varied from various experiments conducted in England. “Lambert (1967) has shown in many cultures that regional dialect is a significant cue in assessing personality from voices” (Giles 1971:280). On the other hand, Strongman & Woosley were able to mention that “Many experiments have demonstrated that personality cannot be judged reliably by just listening to a voice (cf. Kramer, 1963)” (1967:164). Theoretical Issues and Research “Most investigations in this field have been concerned with a comparison majority and minority groups. They invariably find that both types of group hold common stereotypes; pro-majority and anti-minority (e.g. Lambert et al., 1960 with English and French Canadians; Steckler, 1957 with Whites and Negroes; Adelson, 1953 with Gentiles and Jews.)” (1967:164). “Many impression-formation researchers turned their attention to the mental representations that people formed from the information they acquired about a person, and how they later used these representations both to recall this information and to judge the person it describes” (Budesheim et al. 1992:4). According to Reid and Wyer Jr. “…it takes into account the impact of stereotypes at several different stages of information processing, from the initial attention to and interpretation of information about a person to the generation of an overt response. Moreover, it specifies many ways in which both situational and individual difference variables combine to influence the impact of stereotypes on judgments and decisions. It is unquestionably a major contribution to social psychological theorizing” (1998:177). Experimental Hypotheses Consecutively, two experimental hypotheses were considered to test if the accent is still stereotyped to influence the perception of a person. In experiment hypothesis 1, “the speaker with the Received Pronunciation accent will receive a significantly higher competence rating than the speaker with the Yorkshire accent.” In experiment hypothesis 2, “the speaker with the Yorkshire accent will receive a significantly higher social attractiveness rating than the speaker with the Received Pronunciation accent.” Methods This section comprises the research design used, participants of the study, materials, and the procedure used to conduct the experiment. Design The researcher utilized the questionnaire rating as a design which was found to be appropriate for the purpose of this research. Accent is the independent variable while Yorkshire and (R.P.) are its levels. Dependent variable 1 is competence ratings, and dependent variable 2 is social attractiveness ratings. “The experiment used a matched guise technique; in this case, the same speaker adopted two different verbal guises in the form of two accents. The speaker, who was a white female, 33 years of age, attempted to read the newsletter in the same “neutral style” with both accents” (Lab Session 14 handouts). Apparatus and Materials In order to perform the experiment, a tape recorder was used to record the voice which the participants need to listen. A computer and printer were used to produce personality questionnaires that the participants had to write down their answers. Pens and papers were provided as well. Participants A number of participants were requested to do the experiment. The experiment was participated by ___ people. They were selected through ____. Procedure Both written and verbal recording materials were provided in the experimentation. It lasted for one minute and fifty-two seconds, and that the content was a short article from a Huddersfield community newsletter. Below are the standardised instructions that were read out to participants. Before the recording was played: “Today you will be taking part in an experiment that investigates the accuracy of everyday assessments of personality. In a moment you will hear a recording of a woman reading an article from a community newsletter. After listening to the recording you will be given a personality questionnaire which asks you to rate the speaker on ten personality traits. Does everyone understand? Okay, the recording is about to begin.’ After the recording was played: “Having listened to the recording you should now rate the speaker on the ten personality traits listed on the personality questionnaire. Please read the written instructions on the questionnaire and do not confer with anybody else whilst completing it.” Immediately after finishing the experiment, the participants were debriefed about the real purpose of the investigation. Results To summarize the gathered data, Competence for R.P. Accent mean rating is 15.0482, and standard deviation is 3.76409. Meanwhile, Competence for Yorkshire Accent mean rating is 12.5469, and standard deviation is 3.30430. Social Attractiveness for R.P. Accent mean rating is 13.3855, and standard deviation is 3.76409. On the other hand, Yorkshire Accent Social Attractiveness mean rating is 12.7031, and standard deviation is 3.16067. This goes to show that it is significant to experiment hypothesis 1 mentioned earlier, while the result is not significant to experiment hypothesis 2. Figure 1 is the Accent Histograms both for York and R.P. The total competence and social attractiveness ratings for each participant (Received Pronunciation accent first then Yorkshire accent) can also be found in Appendix C. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics that provides a complete data for a better understanding of Accent, Statistic, and Standard Error for Competence and Social Attractiveness. Figure 1. Accent Histograms for Yorkshire and R.P. determining the frequency of Competence and Social Attractiveness. A Table related to this figure can be seen in Appendix A. Independent Samples Test using Levene’s test in performing the inferential test on the rating for competence and social attractiveness. Table 3. Independent samples test showing the results for the equality of variances and equality of means. Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Competence Equal variances assumed .731 .394 4.210 145 .000 2.50132 .59414 1.32701 3.67562 Equal variances not assumed 4.282 142.522 .000 2.50132 .58421 1.34648 3.65616 S_A Equal variances assumed .601 .439 1.357 145 .177 .68242 .50287 -.31149 1.67632 Equal variances not assumed 1.343 129.771 .182 .68242 .50824 -.32308 1.68792 Discussion (I do not have the exact data to answer this, as well as the methods and participants) Can the results be generalised from the participant sample to a target population of interest? Were there any extraneous variables that may have affected the results? If so then explain how they might have affected the results and the implications of this for the conclusions made. In terms of future research, could the experiment be improved? If so, explain how. References Adelson, J. (1953). A study minority group authoritarianism. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 48, 477-485, quoted in Strongman, K.T & Woosley, J. (1967). Stereotyped Reactions to Regional Accents. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol 6, pp 164-167. Budesheim, T. L., Gruenfeld, D.H., Lambert, A. J. & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1992). Theory and Research on Person Impression Formation: A Look to the Future. The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. Martin, L. L., Tesser, A. L. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 4-34. HFB 1002 Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods Lab Session 14, Assessed Experimental Report: The Influence of Accent on Person Perception, 2007-2008, pp.1-5. HFB 1002 Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods Lab Session 15, Assessed Experimental Report: The Influence of Accent on Person Perception, 2007-2008, pp.1-4. Lambert, W. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. J. soc. Issues 23, 91-109, quoted in Giles, H (1971). Patterns of Evaluation to RP, South Welsh and Somerset Accented Speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 10, 280-281. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C. & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 60, 44-51, quoted in Strongman, K.T & Woosley, J. (1967). Stereotyped Reactions to Regional Accents. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol 6, pp 164-167. Kramer, E. (1963). Judgement of personal characteristics and emotions from nonverbal properties of speech. Psychol. Bull. 60, 4, 408-420, quoted in Strongman, K.T & Woosley, J. (1967). Stereotyped Reactions to Regional Accents. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol 6, pp 164-167. Reid, L. & Wyer, R. Jr. (1998). Stereotype Suppression in a Social Context. Stereotype Activation and Inhibition, ed. Wyer, R. Jr. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,177-192. Steckler, G. A. (1957). Authoritarian ideology in Negro college students. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 54, 396-399, quoted in Strongman, K.T & Woosley, J. (1967). Stereotyped Reactions to Regional Accents. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol 6, pp 164-167. Appendices Appendix A. Using T-Test for Group Statistics that is also related to Fig. 1. Accent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Competance RP 83 15.0482 3.76409 .41316 York. 64 12.5469 3.30430 .41304 S_A RP 83 13.3855 2.91268 .31971 York. 64 12.7031 3.16067 .39508 Appendix B. Showing Explore Accent in Case Processing Summary Appendix C. Total competence and social attractiveness ratings for each participant (Received Pronunciation accent first then Yorkshire accent) Appendix C.1. Received Pronunciation Accent Competence Ratings Social Attractiveness Ratings 11 12 18 15 18 15 19 13 20 15 19 12 12 11 9 14 12 8 19 11 12 11 15 14 14 12 14 15 20 13 15 13 11 12 19 16 18 14 13 12 17 15 10 12 10 17 20 16 14 14 19 18 13 15 17 16 14 15 18 14 15 12 16 18 18 14 19 11 15 13 15 13 11 18 25 23 13 22 14 9 18 15 15 14 17 9 13 11 16 9 15 10 25 15 19 13 16 15 14 14 10 11 18 13 6 11 11 12 12 16 17 13 10 12 17 13 15 13 13 12 11 11 14 11 11 10 17 14 19 18 9 8 12 15 13 12 15 20 14 15 12 11 10 13 15 15 9 10 9 9 12 8 18 14 20 15 17 13 20 9 15 14 16 14 23 18 Appendix C.2. Yorkshire Accent Competence Ratings Social Attractiveness Ratings 13 17 15 14 12 7 17 16 15 11 11 15 14 7 14 19 11 14 10 15 16 13 18 15 8 13 7 14 18 10 14 12 9 8 21 11 9 12 11 12 10 9 11 11 16 12 16 20 9 16 11 17 13 16 13 10 10 14 12 13 17 15 17 13 8 12 12 13 10 9 11 15 8 11 17 14 9 14 11 12 11 13 13 11 10 10 10 7 16 16 18 19 10 12 13 14 18 11 11 11 12 9 21 15 10 13 12 15 10 11 10 10 10 6 8 12 13 12 15 11 12 14 10 6 11 20 15 14 Read More