BA Dissertation

School of Linguistics and English Language
An examination of interpersonal judgments of British regional accents and
the relative contribution of this judgment on perception of visual
information of faces
Eliza Wood Lyndorff
Student ID: 500216211
Academic year 2011/12
7th
May 2012
1

Declaration
'I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for BA (Hons) Linguistics/English Language.'
Signed:……………………………………………………………………………………...
Eliza Wood Lyndorff
2

Table of Contents
1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………..4
2 Theoretical Background………………………………………………………………………………6
2.1 Literature on the perception of auditory information………………………………………………6
2.2 Literature on visual perception……………………………………………………………………..7
2 .3 Literature on attitudes and influences of vocal stimulus over visual stimulus….............................7
3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………….9
3.1 Research design…………………………………………………………………………………….9
3.2 Experimental procedure………………………………………………………………………….....9
3.3 Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………10
4 Results……………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Qualitative results
4.1 Auditory and visual attitudes background results…………………………………………………11
Quantitative results
4.2 Auditory stimulus results…………………………………………………………………………13
4.3 Visual stimulus results…………………………………………………………………………….17
4.4 Auditory and Visual stimulus results……………………………………………………………...17
5 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………...20
6.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………...23
6.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research………………………………....................24
7 References…………………………………………………………………………………………...25
8 Appendices
Appendix 8.1…………………………………………………………………………………………..29
Appendix 8.2…………………………………………………………………………………………..30
Appendix 8.3…………………………………………………………………………………………..31
Appendix 8.4…………………………………………………………………………………………..36
Appendix 8.5…………………………………………………………………………………………..37
3

Chapter 1: Introduction
This study will investigate the relative contribution of auditory information namely British
regional accents (Giles and Powesland, 1975) and visual information (Zebrowitz and
Montepare, 2008) specifically individuals faces on the interpersonal judgment of speakers. It
will not be possible to examine the separate effect of visual data due to ‘carry over effects’
from the auditory data to the visual data, therefore this study will examine the relative
contribution of and the added effect of the visual data on the respondent’s perception of the
stimulus provider. It aims to see if there is a relationship between interpersonal judgement in
manners by which individuals speak and their visual appearance, examining how this can
influence respondent’s perceptions and judgement formation (Pear, 1931).
The regional British accents featured in this study are Scottish, Welsh, Yorkshire,
Cockney and general RP. The common phonetic and linguistics features of these accents are
as follows: Scottish is typically rhotic preserving post-vocalic ‘R’ (Hughes, Trudgill and
Watt, 2005). A distinction in Scottish pronunciation between pairs of word like tide and tied
with the second vowel seen as longer, called the Scottish vowel length rule is often observed
(Scobbie, Hewlett and Turk, 1999). Intonation in Welsh English is largely influences by the
Welsh language particularly for those in North Wales where there are many Welsh speakers;
doubling (or germination) of consonants also occurs for example ‘open and apple’ as is clear
from the stimulus provider in this study (Walters, 2001, 2003) (Hughes, Trudgill and Watt,
2005).. The Yorkshire accents common features include a unique form of assimilation which
is evident when ‘a final voiced obstruent comes into contact with an initial voiceless
obstruent, either within a compound word or across a true word boundary, leading to
complete devoicing of the former consonant’(Wells, 1986, p.366-367). The general RP
accent displays smoothing for some triphthongs (vowels with particular features) and
diphthongs (two features) to form monophthongs (pure vowels with just one feature)
(Hughes, Trudgill and Watt, 2005). This smoothing is typically observed in young speakers
as is the case with the RP speaker in this study (Trudgill, 2002). Cockneys typical linguistic
features as displayed by the Cockney stimulus provider are ‘TH’ fronting, whereby the
distinction between labio-dental and dental fricatives is lost (Hughes, Trudgill and Watt,
2005).
From the research, the following hypothesis is formulated for the present study - if
people’s attitude to speech characteristics (accents) influences their judgement of the speaker,
this initial auditory perception may be supported or conflicted by the visual stimulus of the
4

speakers face matched with their voice.
A number of studies have looked at attitudes and perceptions of Individuals to regional
British accents and visual stimulus separately. Another common pattern in accent studies is
linked to the independent variable gender, which although present in several studies has
rarely been analysed with the respondents and stimulus-providers’ group. Most studies have
only included stimulus-providers from one gender (Said, 2006), but rarely compared both
genders (Kraus, 2006), taking this into account, this study includes both male and female
stimulus providers and respondents. This research is thus providing an important insight into
correlations and discrepancies in literature around attitudes to individual’s auditory stimulus
of accents and visual stimulus of faces.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Background
5

2.1 Literature on the perception of auditory information
Firstly relevant literature on perceptions of auditory information (accents) will be
discussed. Sociolinguistics defines an accent as a form of social identity. Becker (1995)
argues that “An accent is the part of a person’s language that serves to identify the speaker’s
regional origin or national/ethnic identity no matter what language the person is speaking” (p.
37). Two studies form the foundations of language attitude studies Pear (1931) and Lambert
et al. (1960). Pears British study required subjects to listen to different speakers broadcasted
over BBC radio. Participants supplied a personality profile to match voices that they heard.
Pear wanted to verify if an individual’s personality could be predicted by manners in which
they spoke (Pear, 1931). While the studies aim wasn’t to record language attitudes, the results
gathered made it one of the first studies in the area of language attitudes. Later experiments
following from this research examined correlations between speech and personality but with
insignificant results; rather, the results showed that participants were attributing stereotypical
traits to accents they were exposed to (Giles & Billings 2004). Sharwood-Smith (1999:59-60)
discovered that RP speakers are often seen as ‘well-educated’ but a little ‘snobbish’.
Nowadays the popularity of RP is decreasing, partly as it is linked to ‘negative connotations
of being superior and posh’ (Trudgill 2000:194-195). In terms of attitudes toward RP it is
said to be more liked and prestigious in England, being rated differently and viewed as less
prestigious in other countries of the UK and Ireland (Milroy, 2001). A study by Giles et al.
(1975) showed that schoolchildren rated a lecturer much more highly on ratings of
intelligence if they spoke with an RP accent than with a Birmingham accent. On the other
hand the RP accent was seen as ‘less pleasant’ in comparison to the London and Norwich
accent (Stockwell, 2002). Therefore in spite of its perceived link with intelligence the RP
accent is losing its ‘statusfulness’ and ‘attractiveness’ as in previous years (Hughes, Trudgill
and Watt, 2005).
Regarding attitudes, the cockney accent is seen as working class and thereby is seen as a
‘neutral’ accent that allows lower class individuals to seem as coming from a higher status
and upper class individuals to seem from a lower status thereby providing a form of ‘social
levelling’ (Hughes, Trudgill and Watt, 2005).
The variety of idioms in Scottish makes the accent variety interesting (Eagle 2001). The
Scottish accent is generally perceived positively with Scottish people being viewed as
friendly, hospitable and warm (Edwards 1982:23).
Pear’s results and other studies for example (Kuiper, 2005) reveals the participants’ social
6

stereotypes, attributes that they as a group associated with most people from other groups
(Hewstone & Giles 1986) ie. “traits that characterize the most prototypical exemplar of a
category’’ (Hewstone, Miles, and Giles 1986). Stereotypes affect behaviour and are real in
their social consequences, as they involve putting negative or positive characteristics on
another group or ‘out-group.’ (Pettigrew, 1981). So ‘Stereotyping’ will predict the speech
that groups utilizes and hence is integral to language attitude formation (Kraus, 2006).
2.2 Literature on visual perception
Secondly literature and research into visual perception will now be dealt with. Firstly
interpersonal attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Walster et al., 1966) and physical
attraction impact our impressions of individuals (Miller, 1970). Additional face perception
studies have analysed affective orientation and its clear influence on interpersonal judgment
of people (Rothbart & Birrell, 1977). Cross and Cross (1971) and Adams and Huston (1975)
highlight the import of developmental changes in perceptions of human faces. They wanted
to measure and verify the relative effect of age discrepancies on perception of faces. Cross
and Cross (1971) discovered no age group effects when comparing young (age 7-17) and
adult (age 28-57, X = 36.0) groups. Adams and Huston (1975) included an older sample
(mean age 66.3 years) and discovered that this group stereotyped middle-aged stimulus
photographs in an increasingly more positive manner compared to young adults. This could
be due to the fact that young and middle-aged groups are not as close to ‘immediate bodily
decline as the elderly’ (Wernick and Manaster, 1984). Secondly it was found that young faces
were rated as increasingly attractive compared to older faces both by young and older
respondents (Wernick and Manaster, 1984). Gender discrepancies were not discovered, but
clear age differences as hypothesized, were discovered (Wernick and Manaster, 1984).
2.3 Literature on attitudes and influences of vocal stimulus over visual stimulus
Lastly literature and research on attitudes and the influences of vocal stimulus and/ over
visual stimulus will now be discussed. Previous research has commonly dealt with
participant’s attitudes to oral stimulus such as a recorded segment of speech requiring
participants to judge it according to such factors as attractiveness, wealth, personality, and
intelligence. Seligman, et al. (1972) supported by Dusenbury and Knower (1938) present
evidence on the significance of vocal over visual stimulus in perception of personality.
Seligman, et al. (1972) conducted an experiment on student- teachers who were asked to
make biased impressions of pupils using three varieties of stimuli. Results indicated that the
7

boys with ‘good’ accents were graded much more favourably than those with ‘poor’ accents
every time (Seligman, et al. 1972). From this the writer inferred that speech style was a vital
prompt to teachers in their assessment of students, as even when blended with other prompts,
its influence did not decrease. Giles (1970;1971;1975) used three evaluative techniques to
investigate the alleged status of particular accents from Britain, it was found that individuals
allocate accents to particular locations on a scale of ‘pleasantness-unpleasantness’, with
unusual accents not being viewed as prestigious as standard accents for example received
pronunciation (RP) (Giles, 1970). The inherent ‘value’ and ‘imposed norm’ hypothesis,
explains this phenomenon (Giles, Bourhis and Davies, 1975).
Conversely Hagiwara, (1975) found that visual information contributed more to
impression formation than verbal information. This research finding of a prejudice towards
visual over vocal information by Hagiwara, (1975) is supported in research by Mehrabian and
Ferris (1967) who found that first impression attitudes are formed ‘7% from speech content,
38% from vocal qualities and 55% from facial information’.
It’s clear from research outlined above that prejudice towards accents is common, yet
there is conflicting evidence regarding influences of auditory stimulus perceptions over visual
stimulus perceptions on interpersonal judgment. This study partly aims to investigate
perception towards accents and contributions and influences of the auditory data on the visual
data results. It is predicted that respondents will display stereotypical attitudes toward the
accents which will be reflected in their interpersonal judgments; this perception will have a
larger relative contribution to perceptions compared with the visual information of the
stimulus providers faces.
Chapter 3: Methodology
8

3.1 Research design
This study is a direct measurement (Ryan, Giles, & Hewstone 1988: 1068) of language
attitudes, whereby subjects respond through surveys to direct questions, on their opinions
regarding different forms of language. Most language attitude studies use indirect measures
for example the matched guise technique (MGT) as in Lambert (1967). However this
technique has various drawbacks including the instruments construct validity; which means
that it is challenging to say for definite if using one speaker changing his/her accent could be
seen as a valid operationalization of a range of accents (Said, 2006). For this reason, this
study has used a data collection instrument that involved stimulus providers with authentic
accents, a similar level of proficiency in English and of both genders. Stimulus providers
included 5 British regional accents, a Scottish, Welsh, Yorkshire, Cockney and a general RP
accent, which was made up of 3 males and 2 females. The 21 respondents consisted of 7
participants in each group with participants of British, Irish and Other specifically mainland
Europe and International participants. Apparatus used to collect the stimulus included a
dictaphone, camera; a camera stand and a passage of the fable ‘The north wind and the sun’
(see Appendix 8.1). Pens and a laptop were also required to collect data on respondent’s
attitudes towards the stimulus.
3.2 Experimental procedure
As the present study requires samples of British regional accents, stimulus providers were
recorded reading the fable aloud. While they read this passage it was recorded using a camera
and Dictaphone. For the participants data collection firstly they were administered consent
forms (see Appendix 8.2) in addition to being told of the right to withdraw from the study at
any point without giving a reason. Afterwards a questionnaire (see Appendix 8.3) on their
general accent attitudes and background to fill out was administered and then they were
presented with three different conditions for each of the 5 British regional accents. The first
condition was an auditory condition whereby the participants heard the accent, secondly there
was the visual condition whereby they were exposed to a mute recording of the participants
face with no sounds and lastly respondents were exposed to the auditory and the visual
condition simultaneously. The presentation of stimulus in this order was repeated for every
accent and the accents were presented as follows Scottish, Welsh, Yorkshire, Cockney and
general RP for each participant. After each condition, the auditory, visual and auditory and
9

visual and after every accent, the respondents were required to fill out the questionnaire on
their attitudes towards the stimulus, rating the accent on a three point scale on traits such as
intelligence ranging from unintelligent to reasonably intelligent to very intelligent.
3.3 Analysis
Qualitative results were analysed using written responses from the auditory and visual
attitudes background questionnaire. Quantitative results were first labelled from 1-3 with 1
being unintelligent, 2 being reasonably intelligent and 3 being very intelligent. These
numbers were then inputted into excel in addition to other details such as the respondents
gender, age and answers to other yes/ no answers as can be seen in Appendix 8.4. The
analysis of the perceptions towards each of the five British accents and later visual stimulus
of the stimulus providers faces was analysed using a one way ANOVA, these output results
were then measured for their statistical significance. To simplify the analysis each individual
trait being measured for example intelligence, friendliness, honesty were separately inputted
into SPSS, so a clear result across respondent group and trait could be observed. To test
whether or not there was an improvement of perception or the opposite effect in terms of
influences of the auditory condition on the visual condition a paired samples T test was
carried out, as the two samples that were measured each time were related and it was the
same participants that were exposed to each sample making this test appropriate. Again to
simplify results the data was inputted for all groups but separately for each trait as outlined
above so clearer carry over effect for each auditory perception on the visual perception could
be noted. Although visual stimulus results to stimulus providers faces will be analysed the
majority of analysis and discussion will focus on the question highlighted in the research
question namely the perception towards British regional accent and the added effect of this
perception on the visual stimulus. The studies independent variables (IVS) are group
(International, British and Irish) and accent (RP, Scottish, Welsh, Cockney, and Yorkshire),
these variables being manipulated should have an influence on the dependant variable
attitudes (to visual and auditory stimulus) showed by the questionnaire answers. Additional
factors in the present study include age (old versus young) and gender (male and female)
these factors were not included as independent variables as they were not controlled for due
to having a range of different ages and an unequal quantity of males and females in the
stimulus providers and participants groups. Previous literature results from the literature
review will then be looked at and compared and contrasted to the results.
Chapter 4: Results
10

This chapter highlights the statistically significant results from the qualitative and
quantitative analysis of the auditory, visual and auditory and visual stimuluses’ data results. It
was predicted in the theoretical background chapter of this study that respondents would have
interpersonal judgments to British regional accents and this perception would have a stronger
bearing on interpersonal judgments in comparison to visual stimulus.
Qualitative results
4.1 Auditory and visual attitudes background results
Questionnaire one provided results on factors such as participant’s accent interest,
awareness, attitudes and potential influence of visual information on this perception. One of
the most clear answers was to the question requiring participants to rate are they ‘aware of
social stigmas associated with particular accents?’, respondents were required to respond with
yes, no or partially. The results in figure 1 below illustrate that 81% of participants were
aware of social stigmas associated with particular accents. While 14% were partially aware of
accent social stigmas.
Figure 1: Social stigma awareness towards accents
Yes
No
Partially
The last question on participant’s accent attitudes asked if they ‘viewed someone
differently if they have attractive/ unattractive accent’. The majority of participants 76% as
seen in figure 2 below responded either yes or partially. So clearly accent variety has an
influence on impression formation for the majority of participants.
Figure 2: Perception differs towards attractive/ unattractive accents
11

Yes
No
Partially
When asked to expand on their reasoning behind these particular accent attitudes
participant B, P and O felt that accent variety influences their perception of an individual’s
personality and temperament ‘sometimes you would be more inclined to like someone if their
accent was nice’, ‘a distinct accent can make a person seem more interesting’, ‘an
unattractive accent can make someone seem very shallow and annoying’. Participant C, T
and R were more in favour of familiar accents; these accents would seem more attractive and
thereby have more of a positive influence/impact on judgment formations than other accents.
Participant G found that accents are an important indication of social class and identity so aid
immensely with our judgment formation and understanding of an individual’s background.
So overall across respondents most agreed that accent played a prominent role in their
impression formation.
In terms of questions investigating potential influence of visual information on accent
impression formation, respondents were asked ‘when listening to the radio do you build up a
mental image of the individual based on their accent? Figure 3 shows that 43% of
respondents said yes in addition to 43% agreeing that they partially did this. While the
remaining 14% responded no.
Figure 3: Build up mental image based on accent
12

Yes
No
Partially
The final question querying respondents on potential visual influences on accent
perception asked if you build up a mental image as in the above question ‘do you find this
mental image is conflicted when you see the individual?’. It was discovered that 43% of
respondents totally agreed with this statement 5% did not agree with this statement and 33%
disagreed with this statement (figure 4).
Figure 4: Mental image conflicted on seeing the individual
Yes
No
Partially
Quantitative results
4.2 Auditory stimulus results
From analysing accent intelligence ratings using a one way ANOVA there was a
statistically significant difference of p = 0.037 between Irish and British ratings. Figure 5
below shows that Irish participants rated Scottish intelligence a lot lower than British
participants.
13

Figure 5: Scottish accent intelligence
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.3
Irish Other British
Nationality
MeanofScottishintelligence
There was a statistically significant difference of p= 0.022 between Irish and British
participants ratings of the Scottish accents attractiveness. Figure 6 below shows that British
participants rated the Scottish accent as more attractive than Irish participants.
14

Figure 6: Scottish accent attractiveness
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Irish Other British
Nationality
MeanofScottishattractiveness
There was a statistically significant result of p= 0.005 between Irish and International
participants ratings of the Welsh accent on honesty. Specifically Irish participants rated the
Scottish accent more highly on ratings of honesty compared to the international participants
as in figure 7 below.
15

Figure 7: Welsh accent honesty
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Irish Other British
Nationality
MeanofWelshhonesty
Regarding each accents favourability, as can be seen in figure 8 and 9 below RP was rated
as the least liked by 7 participants 4 of whom were British. The most liked accent overall was
Scottish with 9 participants rating this accent positively.
Figure 8: most favourable accents
Scottish
RP
Welsh
Yorkshire
Cockney
16

Figure 9: Least favourable accents
RP
Cockney
Welsh
Yorkshire
Scottish
4.3 Visual Stimulus results
A one way ANOVA was used to analyse visual stimulus results. No statistically
significant difference was found between groups when analysing visual ratings on all traits-
intelligence, friendliness, honesty and trustworthiness.
4 .4 Auditory and Visual stimulus results
As is evident by table 1 below it was found using a paired sample T-test that there was a
statistically significant difference between Scottish auditory and visual intelligence.
Table 1: Scottish Auditory and visual intelligence
Scottish Intelligence Mean Mean difference Statistically
significant difference
Auditory Intelligence 2.40476 .38095 P=.008
Visual Intelligence 2.4286 .38095 P=.008
As is clear from table 2 below it were found that there was a statistically significant
difference between RP auditory intelligence and visual intelligence.
17

Table 2: RP Auditory and visual intelligence
RP Intelligence Mean Mean difference Statistically
significant difference
Auditory Intelligence 2.6190 .52381 P=.008
Visual Intelligence 2.0952 .52381 P=.008
Meanwhile effects of the auditory stimulus on the visual stimulus varied across
participants. Scottish stimulus providers were rated more favourably on trait ratings when
participants were exposed to visual information of the stimulus provider rather than the
accent. Welsh stimulus providers were also rated more highly on each of the traits when
showed visual information. Whereas Cockney stimulus providers were rated more highly on
every trait when participants were exposed to accent auditory information, the same was true
for the Yorkshire stimulus provider in terms of favourability for the auditory information in
addition to the RP stimulus provider. So across all participants auditory information was
only slightly preferred at 43% over visual information at 39% as can be seen in figure 3 and 4
with auditory and visual information having similar ratings across traits for three stimulus
providers at 14%.
Table 3: Highest ratings to auditory stimulus or visual stimulus on traits
Accent Scottish Welsh Cockney Yorkshire RP
Trait
Trustworthiness Visual Visual A+V Auditory A+V
Intelligence Visual Visual Auditory Auditory Auditory
Friendliness A +V Visual Auditory Visual Visual
Honesty Auditory Visual Auditory Auditory Auditory
Figure 10: Auditory, Visual and Auditory and Visual ratings across traits and
18

participants
Auditory
Visual
Auditory and
Visual
Chapter 5: Discussion
19

The main results will be summarized in the following paragraphs followed by an
explanation of reasons for the output results by linking them with previous literature in the
area. The noteworthy findings from the qualitative results analysis regarding auditory and
visual attitudes indicated a clear result that overall participants were aware of the social
stigmas associated with accents, specifically 81% reported that yes they were aware of these
stigmas. The final question requiring participants to respond if their perception differs on
hearing attractive versus unattractive accents, 76% responded yes or partially, this finding
along with the participants description of why they liked or did not like a particular accent
supports the above results and partially answers the first part of the research question, that
people are not only aware of accent stigmas but their behaviour also reflects this awareness.
This finding of respondents awareness of social stigmas associated with particular regional
accents and their behaviour reflecting this by ascribing accents to different favourable/
unfavourable scales is supported in research by Giles (1970;1971), Pear, (1931), Lambert et
al. (1960), Giles & Billings (2004), Sharwood-Smith (1999:59-60), Trudgill (2000), Eagle
(2001), Edwards (1982), Kuiper, (2005), Hewstone and Giles (1986), Hewstone, Miles, and
Giles (1986), Pettigrew (1981), Kraus (2006) and Giles, Bourhis and Davies, (1975).
The results regarding the investigation of potential influences of visual information on
accent impression formation are inconclusive in support of the potential prominent role of
visual information, with participants responding in equal quantities to both arguments so
there is no statistically significant difference between the results. Despite there being no
statistically significant result between the influence of visual information on auditory
information overall auditory information had a fractionally larger influence than visual
information at 43% in comparison to visual information ratings at 39% and equal influences
at 14%. So this evidence in favour of auditory information conflicts research evidence by
Hagiwara, (1975) and Mehrabian and Ferris (1967) who revealed that vocal information had
more of an influence on impression formation than visual information but it supports research
evidence by Seligman, et al. (1972) and Dusenbury and Knower (1938) who discovered that
vocal stimulus had a larger impact on personality perception than visual perception and its
influence did not decrease over time. Potential reasons why the present study revealed
favourability in terms of auditory information could be due to the consistent presentation of
this stimulus prior to the other stimulus so the accent condition had the largest bearing on
impression formation. So to address the second part of this studies research question auditory
information had a larger relative contribution to impression formation than visual
20

information.
The most significant quantitative results from the auditory stimulus condition was that
there was a statistically significant result between Irish and British respondents ratings of the
Scottish accent on traits of intelligence and attractiveness. Specifically the trait of intelligence
was rated significantly lower by Irish participants in comparison to British respondents. The
trait of attractiveness towards the Scottish accent was rated significantly higher by British
respondents compared with Irish participants. Also there was a statistically significant result
between Irish and International respondents on ratings of the Scottish accents on ratings of
honesty, with Irish participants rating the Scottish accent significantly higher on this trait than
International respondents.
In terms of the likability of each accent the present results indicated that RP was the least
favourable accent by 33% of participants 19% of whom were British respondents. These
research findings go against certainly what Giles( 1970) discovered in terms of more
prestigious accents for instance received pronunciation (RP) being well liked particularly by
British individuals. The most favourable accent overall was Scottish with 43% of respondents
rating this accent positively. This finding is supported in research by Edwards (1982) that
showed that the Scottish accent is generally associated with positive traits for example
‘trustworthiness’ and ‘friendliness’.
The most significant findings from the auditory stimulus results and the added effect of
these results on the visual stimulus indicated that there were varied results depending on the
participants, accent and trait in question. For example the Scottish stimulus provider was
rated more favourably when the participants were exposed to the visual information of the
stimulus provider rather than the accent. The same was the case for the Welsh stimulus
provider. Whereas the opposite was the case for the Cockney stimulus provider with ratings
higher when respondents were exposed to the auditory information; as was true for the
Yorkshire and the RP stimulus provider towards a favourability of the auditory information
over the visual information. So overall across all participants the auditory information was
only slightly preferred over the visual information supported in research by Seligman, et al.
(1972) and Dusenbury and Knower (1938) with auditory and visual information having
identical ratings across traits for three stimulus providers. So this research finding in terms of
a favourability for three stimulus providers for visual information having a larger bearing on
impression formation in comparison to verbal information supports the research by Hagiwara
(1975) and Mehrabian and Ferris (1967) who highlighted that 55% of impression formation is
build up based on facial information.
21

6.1 Conclusion
This dissertation has investigated auditory perceptions of different nationalities to British
regional accents and the added effect of this perception on the visual perception of faces. The
present study was designed to determine the effect of auditory perception of Irish, British and
International nationalities to British regional accents namely Scottish, Welsh, Yorkshire,
Cockney and RP accents and the additional influence of this perception on the visual stimulus
of faces. The most significant results indicate that the hypothesis highlighted at the closure of
the theoretical background chapter was correct. Returning to the first part of the hypothesis
which was affirmed by the finding in the Qualitative and Quantitative results it is now
possible to state that individuals from different nationalities have and implement varying
perceptions to regional British accents but fundamentally they are aware of the social stigmas
associated with British regional accents. It was found that respondents reported not only an
awareness of the social stigmas associated with particular accents in the qualitative results
section but the quantitative results section revealed that respondents implemented these social
stereotypes when interpersonally judging an individual to various favourable/ unfavourably
traits based on their regional accent alone.
The second part of the research question was affirmed by the finding that auditory
stimulus did indeed have an added effect on the visual stimulus perception, specifically it was
found that auditory stimulus had a larger bearing on interpersonal judgment perception than
the visual information of the stimulus providers faces. In general therefore it would seem that
auditory stimulus has a larger bearing on interpersonal judgment than visual stimulus; but a
potential explanation for the present result could be due to presenting the auditory stimulus
before the visual stimulus so this information had the largest impact on perception as it was
presented first and also any interpersonal judgments after the auditory stimulus was
influenced by carry over effects from the auditory stimulus.
The above significant findings are important as they add research to the area of auditory
perception of accents and they confirm previous research findings that individuals have
stereotypical attitudes towards British regional accents; in addition to contributing additional
evidence and understanding to the relationship between auditory and visual perception and
the potential influence of auditory perception over visual perception.
6.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research
Shortcomings of the present study will now be critically evaluated in addition to an
23

explanation of manners in why each shortcoming can be improved.
As this is a short Undergraduate study with a relatively small sample of stimulus providers
and respondents findings must be taken with caution, due to potentially not being applicable
to the wider population, thereby it would be recommend carrying out a more in depth study
with more participants 50 for example which would give more verification of significant and
insignificant results like Scottish auditory and visual honesty and Welsh auditory and visual
intelligence results. By recording more accents and participants it would give a broader
perspective on attitudes to all of the prominent regional British accents today allowing
researchers to gain a wider understanding of auditory and visual perception.
Also by administering a more detailed attitudinal survey with a greater quantity of
questions this would achieve more extensive results. The respondent’s questionnaire could be
improved, as respondents were only able to rate stimulus on a three point scale this limited
the results and analysis that could be carried out, if a one to five scale had been used more in
depth data on their specific attitudes could have been gathered and analysed.
The current investigation was further limited by the fact that is did not control for all the
studies variables despite them being part of the study thereby this had a negative impact on
results; namely age and gender were not controlled for as there was an imbalance of the same
age and gender stimulus providers and respondents across groups, so these variables were
unable to be analysed. Gathering respondents of different genders was acceptable but
gathering stimulus providers from both genders may have influenced the results positively or
negatively depending on the respondent’s gender; also stimulus providers should have been
gathered from one age group to control for influences on the respondents attitudes of stimulus
provider age. Future research should control for these variables if they were being included
and by doing so effects of age and gender on auditory and visual perception could also be
analysed.
Another source of weakness in this study was the consistent order of the stimulus
presentation across all participants, for instance with the auditory stimulus being presented
first, followed by the visual and visual and auditory stimulus; as in the present study this
factor made it challenging to measure specific influences of each stimulus and also affected
findings by revealing a favourability for the auditory stimulus as it was consistently presented
first. Future studies could assign different stimulus orders to different participants, allowing
researchers to compare perceptions to each stimulus across all participants leading to a more
precise result for each stimulus.
The stimulus chosen for stimulus providers to read out specifically the fable ‘The north
24

wind and the sun’ was appropriate for the present study and would be recommended for use
in future accent based studies.
It would be interesting to look into relationships between auditory and visual perception in
more detail by using differing stimuli for instance presenting an accent and then a picture and
getting participants to link accents to the picture or vice versa. After these results were
gathered they could then be compared to results for auditory and visual stimulus ratings as in
the present study.
Additionally further research could use the matched guise technique instead of a direct
measure of language attitudes comparing respondent’s attitudes to accents when presented
with this method.
As there is a gap generally in the literature any further research into links between auditory
and visual perception would be useful to widen understanding in this field. So to conclude
this research has provided some interesting insights and affirmations that stereotypical
judgments towards British regional accents do exist, but in terms of effects of the visual
stimulus on the auditory stimulus’s perception, further investigation with a larger sample of
participants is required to assert these results as research into this link is only in its infancy.
Chapter 7: References
Adams, C , & Huston, T. (1975). Social perception of middle-aged persons varying in
physical attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 11, 657- 658.
25

Becker, C. P., 1995. The etiology of foreign accent: Towards a phonological component of
identity. M.A. thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press.
Cross, J., & Cross, J. (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty.
Developmental Psychology, 5, 433-439.
Dusenbury, D. and Knower, F., 1938. Experimental studies of the symbolism of actor and
voice. Quartely Journal of Speech, 24, 67-75.
Edwards, J. R. 1982. Language Attitudes and Their Implications among English Speakers. In:
Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H. (eds.). 20-33.
Eagle, A. 2001. Wir Ain Leid. [Online] Available at http://www.scots-
online.org/grammar/sse.htm (accessed March 23rd, 2012).
Fabricius., A. 2002. Ongoing change in modern RP: evidence for the disappearing stigma of
T-glottaling. English World-Wide 23(1): 115-36.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. and Davies, A., 1975. Prestige speech styles: the imposed norm and
inherent value hypothesis. In ‘Language in Anthropology. IV: Language in Many Ways’ (Ed.
W. C. McCormack and S. Wurm). Mouton, The Hague.
Giles, H., Baker, S. and Fielding, G., 1975. Communication length as a behavioural index of
accent prejudice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 6: 73-81.
Giles, H., 1970. Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, 22: 211-227.
Giles, H., 1971. Speech patterns in social interaction: accent evaluation and accent change.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol.
Giles, H., and Powesland, P, F., 1975. Speech Style and Social Evaluation, Bristol, England.
Giles, H, and Billings A.C., 2004. “Assessing Language Attitudes: Speaker Evaluation
Studies.” In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Davies A. and Elder C. (eds.), 187-209.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hagiwara, S. (1975). Visual versus verbal information in impression formation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 692-6
Hart, R. J. and Brown, B. L., 1974. Interpersonal information contained in the vocal qualities
and in content aspects of speech. Speech Monographs, in press.
Hewstone, M., and Howard, G., 1986. “Social groups and social stereotypes in intergroup
communication: a review and model of intergroup communication breakdown.” In Intergroup
communication, William B. G. (ed.), 10-26. London: Edward Arnold.
Hughes, A., Trudgill, P. and Watt, D., 2005. English Accents and Dialects an Introduction to
Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles. Fourth Edition. Hodder
26

Education London.
Kraus, A., 2006. ‘Language attitudes of Québécois students towards le français québécois
standard and le franco-québécois’ The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Kuiper, L., 2005. “Perception is reality: Parisian and Provençal perceptions of regional
varieties of French.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(1), 28-52.
Labov, W., 1972a. ‘Subjective dimensions of linguistic change in progress’ in Sociolinguistic
patterns. Oxford Basil Blackwell, p. 143-159.
Lambert, W.E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.D. and Fillenbaum, S., 1960. ‘Evaluational
reactions to spoken languages’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60: 44-51.
Lambert, W. E., 1967. “A social psychology of bilingualism”. Journal of Social
Issues. 23:2.91-109.
Mehrabian, A. And Ferris, S., 1967. Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in
two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248-252.
Miller, A. C. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic
Science, 19, 241-243.
Milroy, J., 2001. Received Pronunciation: who ‘receives’ it and how long will it be
‘received’? Studia Anglica Posnaiensia 36: 15-33.
Pear, T.H., 1931. ‘Voice and Personality’. Wiley, London.
Pettigrew, T. F., 1981. “Extending the Stereotype Concept.” In Cognitive Processes in
Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour, D. L. Hamilton (ed.), 303-331. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rothbart, M., & Birrell, P. (1977). Attitude and the perception of faces. Journal of Research
in Personality, 11, 209-215.
Ryan, E. B., Howard, G., and Hewstone, M., 1988. “The Measurement of Language
Attitudes.” In Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and
Society, Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, and Klaus J. Mattheier (eds.), 1068-1081. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Said, S. B., 2006. ‘The perception of Arab-accented speech by American native speakers and
non-native speakers from east and south-east Asia’. The Pennsylvania State University.
Available at: www.personal.psu.edu/edu/sbb170/PAL.pdf (Accessed 15th February 2012).
Scobbie, J., Hewlett, N., and Turk, A., 1999. Standard English in Edinburgh and Glasgow:
the Scottish vowel length rule revealed. In Foulkes, Paul and Docherty, Gerald, J. (eds),
Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. PP. 230-45.
Seligman, C. R., Tucker, G. R. and Lambert, W. E., 1972. The effects of speech style and
27

other attributes on teachers attitude toward pupils. Language in Society, 1, 131-142.
Stockwell, P., 2002. Sociolinguistics: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1999. British Shibboleths. In: Ronowicz, E. and Yallop, C. (eds.). 46-
82.
Tollfee, L., 1999. South-east London English: discrete versus continuous modelling of
consonantal reduction. In Foulkes, Paul and Docherty, Gerald., J. (eds), Urban Voices:
Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. PP. 163-84.
Trudgill, P. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 4th ed.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Trudgill, P., 2002. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Walster, E. H., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). The importance of
physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5,
508-516.
Walters, J. R. 2001. English in Wales and a Valleys accent. World Englishes 20(3): 285-304
Walters, J. R. 2003. On the intonation of a South Wales Valleys accent. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association 33(2):211-38.
Wells, J. C. 1986. Accents of English 2. The British Isles. Cambridge University Press
PP.366-367.
Wells, J. C. ,1884. The cockneyfication of RP? In Melchers, Gunnel and Johannesson, Nils-
Lennart (eds). Non-Standard Varieties of Language. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. PP.
198-205.
Wernick, M, and Manaster., G. J. 1987. Age and the perception of age and attractiveness.
University Of Texas at Austin.
Zebrowitz LA, and Montepare JM., 2008. Social psychological face perception: Why
appearance matters. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. ;2:1497. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811283/ (Accessed 10th February 2012)
Chapter 8: Appendices
Appendix 8.1: The north wind and the sun fable read by the stimulus providers
The North Wind and the Sun
28

The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveller came
along wrapped in a warm cloak. They agreed that the one who first succeeded in making the
traveller take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other. Then the North Wind
blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveller fold his
cloak around him, and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shone out
warmly, and immediately the traveller took off his cloak. And so the North Wind was obliged
to confess that the Sun was the stronger of the two.
Appendix 8.2: Respondent consent form
Hi
Thank you for agreeing to take part in my project.
My name is Eliza Wood Lyndorff. I am a third year Psychology and Linguistics student from
Bangor University in Wales.
29

I am interested in reactions to people’s voices, such as when heard in the media.
Please rest assured that any data given in the survey will be regarded as strictly confidential.
If you do not wish to continue your completion of the project, you have the right to stop at
any point.
If, in the future, you feel for whatever, that you do not want your answers from the
questionnaire to be part of my data analysis, you also have the right to contact me and
withdraw your data from the study. Please feel free to contact me on psub7b@bangor.ac.uk
with any questions regarding the questionnaire or my project. Similarly, if you would like to
find out the results of the survey, contact me on the above email.
Please sign below if you are happy for me to incorporate your results as part of my
dissertation research:
......................................................................................................................................................
Appendix 8.3:
Questionnaire 1 general background to respondent and accent exposed to and accent interest
Thank you for taking the time to partake in my project. Please answer the following questions
as accurately as you can. If you have any questions about the questionnaire or my research,
please feel free to ask.
30

Please circle/highlight the most appropriate answer where relevant please expand on your
answer:-
A. General Information.
• Are you: (Male) (Female)
• Which age range applies to you? (younger than 20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-
50) (51-60) (61-70) (older than 71)
• Nationality: (Irish) (British) (International/other)
• Do you often find yourself interested in and listening to other people’s accents and
guessing where they are from? (Yes) (No)
• When listening to the radio do you build up a mental image of an individual’s age,
their physical attributes, and thoughts about their character their personality, and/or their
socio economic background based on their voice? (Yes) (No)
• If yes do you often find this mental image is conflicted when you see a picture of the
individual? (Yes) (No)
• Are you aware of the social stigmas associated with particular accents? (Yes) (No)
• If yes how did you become aware of these
stigmas?........................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................
• Do you feel that these stigmas are a: (Positive) (Negative) thing?
• Please explain your
answer: ........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................
• Do you find yourself seeing someone differently if they fit into these social stigmas
about attractive/ unattractive accents for example? Please explain your
answer ..........................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Questionnaire 2: First condition auditory condition of accent
1. How intelligent do you think this speaker is? (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
(Unintelligent) (Reasonably intelligent) (Very intelligent)
2. How friendly do you think this speaker is? (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
(Unfriendly) (Reasonably friendly) (Very friendly)
31

3. How honest do you think this speaker is? (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
(Dishonest) (Reasonably honest) (Very honest)
4. How trustworthy do you think this speaker is? (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
(Untrustworthy) (Reasonably trustworthy) (Very trustworthy)
5. How attractive did you think this speaker is based on their voice alone? (Please circle
the appropriate answer)
(Unattractive) (Reasonably attractive) (Very attractive)
Questionnaire 2: Second condition visual condition muted
32

Questionnaire 2: Third condition visual and auditory
33

6. Did you find your perception of the person’s accent altering when you saw the
persons face matched with the accent? (Yes) (No) Please explain your
answer: ........................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
...........
Questionnaire 2 third condition auditory and visual last time
34

6. Which accent did you find the most pleasant? (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
(Accent A) (Accent B) (Accent C) (Accent D) (Accent E).
Why did you find this accent the most
pleasant? ......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
.............
7. Which accent did you find the least pleasant? (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
(Accent A) (Accent B) (Accent C) (Accent D) (Accent E).
Why did you find this accent the least
pleasant? ......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
.............
8. Did you find your perception of the person’s accent altering when you saw the
persons face matched with the accent? (Yes) (No) Please explain your
answer: ........................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
...........
Appendix 8.4: Excel data from respondents perceptions towards the stimulus providers
35

F F F M F F F M F F F M M M F F M M F
21-30 -20 41-50 -20 -20 -20 -20 21-30 21-30 51-60 21-30 51-60 51-60 21-30 21-30 41-50 41-50 -20 41-50
Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish Other Other Other Other Other Other Other British British British British British
Irish Irish Eng Irish Eng Irish Eng Irish Irish Irish Dutch D Welsh D Danish S Africa Dutch Danish German A FN Welsh N Irish Scot Liver Geordie N Irish
3 3 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
3 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1
1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
Lectures TvMfamily MediaMedia ExperienceMedia Media Fri media TV TV radio Book ppl TvOther peopleExperienceSchool Bullying Media School pplSchool fri Media UpbringingReligious div
P and N N N N N N N P N N N P N N N N P N P N P N
3 3 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2
2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 3
3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2
2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2
3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 3
3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3
2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2
2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
2 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1
2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3
2 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1
2 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2
2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3
2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1
2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2
2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 2
1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1
N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y
3 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3
2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 3
2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2
2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1
2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2
2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Y
2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2
2 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2
2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 2
Key to symbols
1=unintelligent, untrustworthy,
2=reasonably intelligent, reasonably trustworthy
3=very intelligent, very trustworthy
N= No
Y=Yes
P=Positive
N=Negative
M=Male
F=Female
Appendix 8.5: Results of the one way ANOVA to test the difference between the groups
36

auditory perception of the five accents on rating of intelligence.
Oneway
Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
ScotINT Irish 7 1.8571 .37796 .14286 1.5076 2.2067
Other 7 2.0000 .00000 .00000 2.0000 2.0000
British 7 2.2857 .48795 .18443 1.8344 2.7370
Total 21 2.0476 .38421 .08384 1.8727 2.2225
WelshINT Irish 7 1.8571 .37796 .14286 1.5076 2.2067
Other 7 1.7143 .48795 .18443 1.2630 2.1656
British 7 2.1429 .37796 .14286 1.7933 2.4924
Total 21 1.9048 .43644 .09524 1.7061 2.1034
CockINT Irish 7 2.1429 .69007 .26082 1.5047 2.7811
Other 7 2.0000 .57735 .21822 1.4660 2.5340
British 7 2.2857 .48795 .18443 1.8344 2.7370
Total 21 2.1429 .57321 .12509 1.8819 2.4038
YorkINT Irish 7 2.0000 .57735 .21822 1.4660 2.5340
Other 7 2.1429 .69007 .26082 1.5047 2.7811
British 7 1.8571 .37796 .14286 1.5076 2.2067
Total 21 2.0000 .54772 .11952 1.7507 2.2493
RPINT Irish 7 2.7143 .75593 .28571 2.0152 3.4134
Other 7 2.7143 .48795 .18443 2.2630 3.1656
British 7 2.4286 .53452 .20203 1.9342 2.9229
Total 21 2.6190 .58959 .12866 2.3507 2.8874
37

38
Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Dependent Variable (I) Nationality (J) Nationality
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
ScotINT Irish Other -.14286 .19048 .463 -.5430 .2573
British -.42857*
.19048 .037 -.8287 -.0284
Other Irish .14286 .19048 .463 -.2573 .5430
British -.28571 .19048 .151 -.6859 .1145
British Irish .42857*
.19048 .037 .0284 .8287
Other .28571 .19048 .151 -.1145 .6859
WelshINT Irish Other .14286 .22335 .530 -.3264 .6121
British -.28571 .22335 .217 -.7550 .1835
Other Irish -.14286 .22335 .530 -.6121 .3264
British -.42857 .22335 .071 -.8978 .0407
British Irish .28571 .22335 .217 -.1835 .7550
Other .42857 .22335 .071 -.0407 .8978
CockINT Irish Other .14286 .31587 .656 -.5208 .8065
British -.14286 .31587 .656 -.8065 .5208
Other Irish -.14286 .31587 .656 -.8065 .5208
British -.28571 .31587 .378 -.9493 .3779
British Irish .14286 .31587 .656 -.5208 .8065
Other .28571 .31587 .378 -.3779 .9493
YorkINT Irish Other -.14286 .30117 .641 -.7756 .4899
British .14286 .30117 .641 -.4899 .7756
Other Irish .14286 .30117 .641 -.4899 .7756
British .28571 .30117 .355 -.3470 .9184
British Irish -.14286 .30117 .641 -.7756 .4899
Other -.28571 .30117 .355 -.9184 .3470
RPINT Irish Other .00000 .32297 1.000 -.6785 .6785
British .28571 .32297 .388 -.3928 .9642
Other Irish .00000 .32297 1.000 -.6785 .6785
British .28571 .32297 .388 -.3928 .9642
British Irish -.28571 .32297 .388 -.9642 .3928
Other -.28571 .32297 .388 -.9642 .3928
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Oneway ANOVA
Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Dependent Variable
(I)
Nationa
lity
(J)
Nationa
lity
Mean
Differen
ce (I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
ScotINT Irish Other -.14286 .
19048
.463 -.5430 .2573
British -.42857*
.
19048
.037 -.8287 -.0284
Other Irish .14286 .
19048
.463 -.2573 .5430
British -.28571 .
19048
.151 -.6859 .1145
British Irish .42857*
.
19048
.037 .0284 .8287
Other .28571 .
19048
.151 -.1145 .6859
WelshINT Irish Other .14286 .
22335
.530 -.3264 .6121
British -.28571 .
22335
.217 -.7550 .1835
Other Irish -.14286 .
22335
.530 -.6121 .3264
British -.42857 .
22335
.071 -.8978 .0407
British Irish .28571 .
22335
.217 -.1835 .7550
Other .42857 .
22335
.071 -.0407 .8978
CockINT Irish Other .14286 .
31587
.656 -.5208 .8065
British -.14286 .
31587
.656 -.8065 .5208
Other Irish -.14286 . .656 -.8065 .5208
39

31587
British -.28571 .
31587
.378 -.9493 .3779
British Irish .14286 .
31587
.656 -.5208 .8065
Other .28571 .
31587
.378 -.3779 .9493
YorkINT Irish Other -.14286 .
30117
.641 -.7756 .4899
British .14286 .
30117
.641 -.4899 .7756
30117
.641 -.4899 .7756
British .28571 .
30117
.355 -.3470 .9184
British Irish -.14286 .
30117
.641 -.7756 .4899
Other -.28571 .
30117
.355 -.9184 .3470
RPINT Irish Other .00000 .
32297
1.00
0
-.6785 .6785
British .28571 .
32297
.388 -.3928 .9642
32297
1.00
0
-.6785 .6785
British .28571 .
32297
.388 -.3928 .9642
British Irish -.28571 .
32297
.388 -.9642 .3928
Other -.28571 .
32297
.388 -.9642 .3928
*. The mean difference is
significant at the 0.05
level.
40

Results of one sample T test to test the improvement in intelligence perception when the
41

respondents were exposed to the visual after the auditory data
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
ScotINTA 21 2.0476 .38421 .08384
ScotINTV 21 2.4286 .59761 .13041
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
ScotINTA 24.422 20 .000 2.04762 1.8727 2.2225
ScotINTV 18.623 20 .000 2.42857 2.1565 2.7006
T-TEST
/TESTVAL=0
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=WelshINTA WelshINTV
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
WelshINTA 21 1.9048 .43644 .09524
WelshINTV 21 2.1905 .67964 .14831
One-Sample Test
42

Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
WelshINTA 20.000 20 .000 1.90476 1.7061 2.1034
WelshINTV 14.770 20 .000 2.19048 1.8811 2.4998
GET
FILE='/Volumes/PSUB7B/InteligentAccents.spv.sav'.
DATASET NAME DataSet4 WINDOW=FRONT.
43

BA Dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to BA Dissertation

Similar to BA Dissertation (20)

BA Dissertation