Is there an interlanguage speech credibility benefit?

Abstract

Some (though not all) previous studies have documented the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit (ISIB), i.e. the greater intelligibility of non-native (relative to native) speech to non-native listeners as compared to native listeners. Moreover, some studies (again not all) found that native listeners consider foreign-accented statements as less truthful than native-sounding ones. We join these two lines of research, asking whether foreign-accented statements sound more credible to non-native than to native listeners and whether difficult-to-process (less comprehensible) utterances are less credible. In two experiments we measure the intelligibility, comprehensibility and credibility of native and foreign-accented statements for native listeners and non-native listeners matched or mismatched in L1 with non-native talkers. We find an ISIB in both matched and mismatched non-native listeners, and an analogous matched comprehensibility benefit. However, we obtain no evidence of an interlanguage speech credibility benefit. Instead, both matched and mismatched non-native listeners tend to trust native statements more (i.e. statements produced by their target-language models). For native listeners, we do not confirm the tendency to mistrust non-native statements, but we do find a moderate correlation between the comprehensibility and credibility of foreign-accented utterances, giving limited support to the hypothesis that decreased perceptual fluency leads to decreased credibility.

Foreignness or Processing Fluency? On Understanding the Negative Bias Toward Foreign‐Accented Speakers

“…Lev‐Ari and Keysar advanced that, because foreign‐accented speech reduces processing fluency, speakers come across as less credible. However, given that these results have not been reproduced (Baus et al., 2019; Frances et al., 2018 [regional accent]; Souza & Markman, 2013; Stocker, 2017) or have only partially been reproduced (Hanzlíková & Skarnitzl, 2017; Podlipský et al., 2016), the impact of foreign‐accented speech on credibility cannot be generalized, and further research should investigate under which conditions this effect occurs. It is surprising that true sentences had a higher score when spoken by the reported candidate than by the native candidate or the foreign candidate.…”

“…11Throughout the article, we refer to processing fluency as the ease with which information is processed (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). As it has done in previous studies, we expected foreign accent to affect processing fluency (Dovidio & Gluszek, 2012; Dragojevic & Giles 2016; Frances, Costa, & Baus, 2018; Lev‐Ari & Keysar, 2010; Mai & Hoffmann, 2014; Podlipský, Šimáčková, & Petráž, 2016; Roessel, Schoel, Zimmermann, & Stahlberg, 2017; Souza & Markman, 2013; Stocker, 2017). Here, processing fluency was not an indicator of a speaker's proficiency at the semantic or syntactic level but an indicator of ease in processing a speaker's global foreign accent, which comprises prosody along with the repertoire of sound units and their combinations (Major, 2001).…”

“…Although the theory that accent triggers an automatic social categorization has received vast empirical evidence (Giles & Watson, 2013), the role of processing fluency has not been addressed as often, and results have not always been consistent. For example, Souza and Markman (2013), using the same paradigm as Lev‐Ari and Keysar (2010), failed to find an effect of foreign accent on trust (see also Hanzlíková & Skarnitzl, 2017; Podlipský, Šimáčková, & Petráž, 2016, for a partial effect of accent on trust; but Baus, McAleer, Marcoux, Belin, & Costa, 2019; Frances, Costa, & Baus, 2018; Stocker, 2017, for no differences between regional or foreign‐accented speakers and native speakers). Mai and Hoffmann (2014) suggested that bias may possibly originate from both foreignness and processing fluency.…”

On the effects of regional accents on memory and credibility

“…One of the most salient features of a spoken message is the accent with which it is conveyed, which influences listeners' evaluations. For instance, messages said in a foreign accent are remembered in less detail and are considered less credible than those produced with a native accent (Evans & Michael, 2014;Hanzlíková & Skarnitzl, 2017;Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010and Podlipský, Šimáčková, & Petráž, 2016; but see Souza &Markman, 2013 andStocker, 2017). Put simply, we do not remember or believe messages produced by foreign accented speakers-i.e., non-native speakers of a language-to the same extent as those produced by native speakers.…”

“…That is, accent serves as a cue that a speaker is a non-native speaker, which activates stereotypes-such as foreign accented speakers are less competent and trustworthy than native speakers-which might lead to difficulties in comprehension (Kavas & Kavas, 2008;Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, & Fillenbaum, 1960;Munro & Derwing, 1995;Ryan et al, 1982). Furthermore, nonnative speakers also evaluate other non-native speakers more negatively (Hanzlíková & Skarnitzl, 2017;Podlipský et al, 2016), highlighting the importance of nativeness in credibility ratings.…”