The Effects of Dialect , Gender , and Group Identity on Person Perception

The current study examined the influence of dialect, gender, and group identification on the person perception process. Participants listened to a message delivered in either a standard or southern dialect by either a male or female speaker. The researcher examined differences in speaker evaluations based on the speaker’s dialect and gender. The impact of individual differences in southern identification on speaker evaluations was also explored. Results demonstrated that a southern dialect significantly affects perceptions of the speaker. The speaker’s gender and participants’ level of southern identification interacted with dialect to influence speaker evaluations on a number of measures. Results were discussed in terms of previous research. Implications for southern (and other nonstandard) speakers were also highlighted. Effects of Dialect 4 The Effects of Dialect, Gender, and Group Identity on Person Perception We constantly find ourselves in situations in which we must make inferences about the behavior, attitudes, and personality of other people based on a limited amount of information. When we lack information necessary to make well-informed judgments about others or when we do not have the time or resources to process additional information, we use the information that is available to form perceptions and evaluations of those people. In a number of such ambiguous situations, the only clue with which we have to evaluate a person is his or her voice. In these circumstances, a number of voice characteristics (e.g., the speaker’s dialect and gender) as well as several listener characteristics (i.e., group identity) may influence the listener’s perceptions and evaluations of the speaker. Social Categorization and Person Perception At the most basic level, person perception consists of two steps (Hinton, 1993). First, an individual (the observer) perceives and collects information about another individual (the target). Second, the observer employs that information in making inferences about the target. These inferences might include explanations for the target’s behavior or assumptions about the target’s personality or preferences. Research has demonstrated that there are several important aspects of the situation which affect these inferences about the target. First, the target supplies a great deal of information which influences person perception. This information may include the target’s physique (Ryckman, Robbins, Kaczor, & Gold, 1989; Wells & Siegel, 1961), height (Wilson, 1968), voice (Addington, 1968; Argyle, 1988), or hairstyle (Roll & Verinis, 1971). The target’s clothing also plays a key role in person perception (Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989; Sissons, 1971). For example, dressing in a school uniform positively influences perceptions of a target student’s behavior, academic achievement, and academic potential as perceived by peers and teachers Effects of Dialect 5 (Behling, 1994). Second, the perceiver’s influence on information supplied by the target plays an important role in the process of person perception. Concreteness-abstractness (Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961) is one observer characteristic that may affect person perception. A concrete individual conveys that there is only one correct way of thinking about or explaining things; this individual cannot tolerate disconfirming information. Conversely, an abstract individual recommends looking for a number of interpretations of any situation. The extent to which an observer might be described as either concrete or abstract would certainly affect the observer’s interpretation of a target’s behavior because these two types of individuals deal with disconfirming information very differently. Third, the observer’s relationship to the target affects the inferences he or she makes about the target’s behavior or personality. The continuum model of impression formation (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) maintains that person perception involves a rapid initial categorization in which the observer attends to the target’s physical characteristics and other readily-available information. This model puts forward the idea that, if the target is irrelevant to the observer, this initial categorization may serve as the only basis on which the observer makes inferences. If the target is of some importance to the observer (e.g., there is a possibility of future interaction), however, the observer pays considerably more attention to the target in order to confirm the accuracy of the initial categorization and combine additional information about the target with the initial categorization (Fiske, Neuberg, Pratto, & Allman, 1986). Fourth, the social context of the situation may shape person perception. For example, in a study conducted by Ryan and Carranza (1975), Mexican American, African American, and White participants rated American speakers with a Spanish accent lower on a number of personal characteristics including level of education, intelligence, friendliness, and trustworthiness as compared to American speakers with Effects of Dialect 6 no accent in two different contexts, home and school. These investigators found that, while all groups of participants perceived the non-accented speaker more favorably on personal traits in both contexts, the accented speakers received higher ratings in the home context, demonstrating that individuals are more tolerant of accented speakers in the informal context. Finally, the cultural setting is important in the process of person perception. Korten (1974) asked participants to provide descriptions of familiar and unfamiliar persons to assess differences in person perception among American and Ethiopian students. Results indicated that, while both groups of students categorized others on the basis of their interests and activities, American students emphasized individuals’ abilities, knowledge, cognitive-emotional style, and interpersonal style while Ethiopian students highlighted others’ interpersonal interactions, opinions, and beliefs in their use of social categories. Thus, although there are a variety of target, situational, and observer factors that affect the person perception process, most researchers agree that social categorization is the initial and most likely step in person perception (Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999). Tajfel (1978, p. 61) describes social categorization “as the ordering of social environment in terms of groupings of persons in a manner which makes sense to the individual. ” Researchers have put forward several hypotheses to explain why individuals group people into categories. One hypothesis states that social categories are necessary due to information overload; researchers who support this explanation assert that humans have limited cognitive resources and social categories help simplify the complex world in which we live (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986; Taylor, 1981). Another hypothesis contends that social categories are necessary due to a shortage of information; investigators who promote this explanation argue that social categories are useful when a situation requires inferences about another’s behavior and personality (Medin, 1988; Oakes & Effects of Dialect 7 Turner, 1990). Regardless of whether we categorize others to simplify our overwhelmingly complex world or make inferences when we lack information, a number of factors form the basis on which we categorize groups of people. Campbell (1956, 1967) asserts that categorization of a group may be based on any observable physical or social trait, but there is strong evidence that individuals categorize people first and foremost on the basis of age, gender, and race (Brewer, 1988; Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999), most likely due to the fact that these characteristics are readily observable. Numerous investigators of social cognition have argued that mere categorization of people into groups will lead to the activation of stereotypes about those groups (Hamilton, 1981; Zárate & Smith, 1990). The concept of stereotypes is exceptionally complex, and a number of researchers have offered diverse definitions for the term. For example, one of the earliest definitions, put forward by Allport (1954), described a stereotype as an exaggerated belief about some category which will shape our behavior toward that category. Fiske and Taylor (1984) view stereotypes as a type of role schema which helps us to systematize information about the traits and behavior of certain types of people based on social categories (e.g., age, race, and sex). Despite the large number of definitions, most often ‘stereotype’ refers to the attribution of various traits and characteristics to groups, most often on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender (Schneider, 2004). Thus, researchers have suggested that the social categorization process leads us to quickly categorize targets according to race, gender, and age in order to promote organization and memory of information concerning social targets (e.g., Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman; 1978). A wealth of social psychological research has been dedicated to examining the content of these stereotypes. Katz and Braly (1933) conducted the earliest investigations of stereotype Effects of Dialect 8 content. The researchers provided participants with a list of adjectives and asked them to indicate which traits they would attribute to 10 racial and ethnic groups. Results demonstrated that White American participants had very specific stereotypes about various racial/ethnic groups. For example, Germans were stereotyped as scientifically minded (as indicated by 78% of participants) and African Americans were stereotyped as superstitious (84% of participants). Since that first study in 1933, hundreds of studies have investigated the changes in stereotype content over the years for various racial and ethnic groups, as well as the stereotype content of other groups, such as males and females (Cowan & Stewart, 1977; Fernberger, 1948; Rose