Benjamin Paciorkowski and Michaelia Gilbert Hanover College

 First Impression Formation  Ambady & Rosenthal (1993) ▪ Participants rated professors after watching a 30 second clip. ▪ Participants’ first impressions predicted students’ end of the semester evaluations (r =.76)

 In a review of the literature, Fuertes, Potere and Ramirez (2002) found “speech accents have been shown to affect the listeners’ evaluations of speakers’ competence, social status, social attractiveness, personality, and similarity to the listener.”

 Purnell, Idari & Baugh (1999) ▪ Found that listeners discriminated against a speaker searching for an apartment based upon the speaker’s accent.

 Preston (1998) found that when participants were asked to rate a speaker according to “pleasantness” those speakers who received the highest rating were those accents that most closely mirrored the participant’s.  Participants from Michigan rated their accent and the region in which their accent is found as having a “normal” or “acceptable” accent, while giving poorer ratings to those areas in which Southern or New York City accents are found (Preston, 1998).

 Participants’ ratings of the speaker will reflect regional stereotypes (e.g., A Southern speaker will be rated as more likely to use tobacco products).

 As a group, participants will rate the Midwestern accent as most familiar and as having more desirable characteristics.  In the United States many have suggested that the standard accent is a hybrid of the Midwestern accent, and is most often the accent used by national news anchors (Hammel, 1999).

Participants’ ratings will also reflect in-group preferences, such that participants will rate speakers from an area closest in distance to their own region as more similar to themselves and as having more desirable characteristics

 Study was conducted online via Dr. John Krantz’s “Psychological Research on the Net.”  (  Obtained informed consent.  Participants listened to a sound clip of one of five randomly assigned accents  Boston, Midwestern, Southern, Minnesotan and Californian

 I was in the park just the other day. The sun was out and there were almost no clouds in sight. The grass seemed greener and the water seemed bluer, making it a great day for a walk. However, the walk was soon turned into a run as the sky filled with clouds. I ran for cover hoping not to get soaked. Luckily, I made it just as it started to pour. It’s amazing how fast the weather can change. Next time I walk, I’m bringing my umbrella.

 Participants rated the speaker using a survey  i.e. How likely is the speaker to use tobacco products? ▪ Ranked on a 1 to 7 Likert Scale  Participants completed a demographics survey and received a debriefing form.  Asked for participants’ hometown and current zip codes.

 N = 136  Originally 147  28 males  106 females  Age  Range  Mean = 24.5  Race  104 Caucasian  8 African American  7 Hispanic  6 Asian American  6 Other

 Analysis  Regression analyses with effect coding for accent.  Important to Note  Only analyzed the Boston, Midwestern and Southern accents. ▪ N = 78

 Results support our first hypothesis that participants would rate the speaker based upon regional stereotypes.

Grand Mean = 3.188

Grand Mean = 4.030

Grand Mean = 2.607

 Results also support our second hypothesis that participants would rate the Midwestern accent as having more desirable characteristics.

Grand Mean = 3.348

Grand Mean = 2.957

 Our results are contrary to our third hypothesis that participants would rate those accents closest in distance to their own location more favorably than those accents farthest from their location.

Participants rated the speaker as more honest and more family-oriented as distance from the participants’ hometown increased. ▪ Honesty ▪  =.303, t(72) = 2.271, p =.026  Family Oriented ▪  =.306, t(71) = 2.27, p =.026

 Accent does play a role in first impression formation.  Participants were picking up on differences in the various accents and rating the speaker accordingly

 Most of our participants were unable to correctly identify the Minnesotan or Californian accent.  Our accents may not have been believable to participants already familiar with the regional accent they were assigned.

 Try to use accents that are more representative of their respective regions.  Use a larger variety of accents from each region.  Look at how gender and accent interact.