Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
A couple of studies on perception. First, there’s now visual data to back up the idea that everything looks kinda gray when you feel blue.
Researchers examined how the retina responds to different black-and-white contrast situations. They did the tests on healthy subjects and on patients with depression. Turns out that depressed people have much lower retinal responses—even if they’re on antidepressants. And the worse the depression, the worse the performance of the retina.
In fact, the retinal reaction alone was a good diagnostic of depression. So the world really can look blehhh to somebody who’s depressed. The research is in the journal Biological Psychiatry. [Emanuel Bubi et al, http://bit.ly/bOXClP]
Study 2 looked at test subjects’ impressions of the honesty of simple factual statements made by other people. The researchers found that listeners were less likely to believe speakers with foreign accents. And the heavier the accent, the less believable they were perceived to be. The work appears in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. [Shiri Lev-Ari and Boaz Keysar, http://bit.ly/cFsPEf]
So our own accent preferences could affect how much we accept things we hear from reporters, eyewitnesses, job applicants, others whose accent differs from our own. Quelle domage.
–Steve Mirsky
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast]
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentWere the participants of the "accent/doubt" study all from the United States? If so, how varied was the population? I am curious if this is a worldwide response or particular to citizens of the US. What was the size of the population?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that I could read the research myself, but as a layperson, I didn't want to spend the $31.50 for one issue of the journal.
Were the participants of the "accent/doubt" study all from the United States? If so, how varied was the population? I wonder if this is a worldwide response or particular to citizens of the US. What was the size of the population?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that I could read the research myself, but as a layperson, I didn't want to spend the $31.50 for one issue of the journal.
I have seen several studies similar to this one and I find this one to be in direct conflict with a previous study stating that most people in the USA find people with an English accent more intelligent and believable. Another point seemed to suggest that these same people found that persons with a Mexican accent seemed less intelligent and less believable. The interesting thing with most of these studies is that they don't seem take into account the accents of the study individuals such as persons from Maine or from New Orleans where there tends to be people with very thick accents and distrust of outsiders. All of these studies are just too simple and far too one sided to have any real value. A person’s perception of another is far too complex to just take into account this one variance. Many studies have shown that people have differing viewpoints on an individual by how that same person is dressed how their hair is and how they speak. A true study such as this would be more interesting if it took into account all of these possibilities by using the same persons with different dress, hair, makeup, tattoos, accents and mannerisms and used people from various parts of the country (or world if you really wanted a true evaluation) and publish this as a valuable work. As it is this study is just too simple and far too small to make any kind of accurate evaluations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuote: "The researchers found that listeners were less likely to believe speakers with foreign accents. And the heavier the accent, the less believable they were perceived to be." How could this be in in any conflict with a study that says that "most people in the USA find people with an English accent more intelligent and believable. " ????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout having read the study, I would say that it is probably flawed. More likely, listeners are less likely to believe speakers whose accents differ from those of accents they hear at home, or are used to. I was raised with a Hungarian mother and Hungarian grandparents. I believe I am more likely to believe someone with a Hungarian accent than someone with an American accent, although I have an American accent myself. I would argue that credibility, and accent itself is connected to ego boundaries, and if the speaker falls inside the listener's historic self-definition, that speaker is less likely to arouse suspicion. Did less people trust Secretary of State Henry Kissinger because of his accent? I doubt it. Are Californians less likely to believe Schwarzenegger because he has an accent? I don't think so. While "most people in the USA find people with an English accent more intelligent and believable," is that necessarily true of a sermon delivered with a British accent? How about orders on a battlefield? I think in both cases most Americans would prefer a Southern accent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving grown up in a multilingual household I have never experienced credibility issues upon hearing accents. This study seems to be a measure of provincialism and lack of sophistication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly, your take on this is what I was speaking of. This study does not take into account the variables you stated and as such is far too limited to be able to come to any worthwhile conclusions. You’re right that in context any accent would seem more or less believable, such as you analogy of a sermon spoken with a British accent. However it would still depend on where in the country you live if you preferred the Southern accent or some other. For instance, in the Pacific Northwest listening to a sermon in an Anglican church by someone with a strong Southern accent would be most incongruous indeed, where as in that same church the same sermon by someone with a British accent would be accepted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is still the same; to have a true outcome for a study like this one it would need to expand greatly the parameters of the test. Though flawed the study is still interesting and warrants a more in-depth study. I would like to read that one.
A better study would be to measure the reaction of certain phonological strategies with nonsense words. Listeners would be asked to listen to gibberish and told that the speaker is either lying or telling the truth, and then listen to a set of utterances, some with gibberish that follows the phonological rules that are familiar to the listener, and some that follow other phonological rules, for instance, the voicing of all consonants except in word initial and word final position, or non reduction of vowels that are not accented, both would parse as "accented speech" to a native English-only speaker. If the listener guesses with a high degree of consistency that the phonological rules within his "comfort zone" are truthful, then it means phonological clues do effect the percieved veracity of the speaker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe. the 'accent' article, I generally agree with many comments, except I think there's a 'processing difficulty' factor that is somewhat involved, not just mistrust of 'foreigners' (like 'Yankees'). The article abstract states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Non-native speech is harder to understand than native speech. We demonstrate that this “processing difficulty” causes non-native speakers to sound less credible. People judged trivia statements such as “Ants don't sleep” as less true when spoken by a non-native than a native speaker..."
The difficulty factor influences understanding and perhaps draws attention away from facial and hand expressions, etc.
Even though it's a minor difference, when I hear a British speaker say something like :drawring board" or aluminium I always seem to have to go through an interpretation process and then reflect briefly on why they have to talk like that... In the meantime I somewhat lose track of what they're saying.
With 'thicker' accents, I think additional interpretative processes have to be invoked much more frequently, detracting more from understanding the speaker's message.
On the other hand when listening to speakers with similar accents listeners often pay little attention to message details, and may even insert 'standard' message meanings. That would be another interesting study...
Interesting on accents. Many UK Banks and ISP's shifted there call centres to India in the mid 10's. They are now bringing them back but, whether this is about comprehending or prejudice is difficult to say. One banks complaint score fell drastically when they did this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bank based in Scotland uses Scots of course in its call centre. I find it difficult to actually adjust to their accent but then I find equal difficulty with a Belfast person from Northern Ireland when he is sitting next to me.
But it is more than accent. It is about tone and music in the speech. I favour people from Newcastle.
Of course this does have a commercial impact. I always record my own message on my mobile (cellphone)