Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment (#111)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Andre L. Souza Arthur B. Markman. Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment. (2012, January 04). Retrieved 23:56, January 17, 2018 from

MLA Style

"Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment" Andre L. Souza Arthur B. Markman. 04 Jan 2012 08:14 17 Jan 2018, 23:56 <>

MHRA Style

'Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment', Andre L. Souza Arthur B. Markman, , 04 January 2012 08:14 <> [accessed 17 January 2018]

Chicago Style

"Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment", Andre L. Souza Arthur B. Markman, , (accessed January 17, 2018)


Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment [Internet]. Andre L. Souza Arthur B. Markman; 2012 Jan 04, 08:14 [cited 2018 Jan 17]. Available from:

Reference to Original Report of Finding Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1093-1096.
Title Accent, processing fluency and credibility judgment
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Experiment 1
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result "As predicted, accented speech was rated as less truthful than native speech"
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Exact Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Same Direction, p=.83
Number of Subjects 65
Number of Subjects in Original Study 30
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2011
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Andre L. Souza Arthur B. Markman
Detailed Description of Method/Results A female native English speaker, two female native speakers of Brazilian-Portuguese and two female native speakers of Korean recorded 70 trivia statements such as "A rat can last longer without water than a camel" in a sound-attenuated booth. The speakers read the statements into a microphone and the speech was recorded directly to disk using an Apogee PSX-100 A/D D/A converter. To obtain equivalent overall amplitude level for all statements, the sound files were equated for RMS amplitude. The statements were presented to participants using E-prime 2.0.

A total of 65 native speakers of English were recruited for this experiment. Participants were sat in front of a computer, by themselves, and listened to 48 trivia statements in English. Sixteen of these statements were spoken by a native speaker of Brazilian-Portuguese, 16 by a native speaker of Korean and 16 by a native speaker of English. All statements were recited in English.

After listening to each statement, participants were asked to (a) indicate whether they knew for a fact the statement is true and (b) indicate how likely they were to believe that the statement was true. For that, they used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 7 (definitely true). To reduce suspicion about the main objective of the study and the prominence of accented speech, each participant heard additional 20 fillers statements read by two additional native speakers of English. Each participant heard a total of 70 trivia statements.

A separate pool of participants rated the degree of accentedness of the non-native speech, as well as perceived difficulty to understand each non-native speaker. Results showed that the non-native speech was significantly perceived as accented and more difficult to understand (see pdf with further details).

As in the original study, knowing for a fact the veracity of the statement did not have any effect on the truthfulness judgments.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The replication was fairly similar. Some of the differences are: 1) Trivia statements were the same ones used by the authors in the original study (plus a few additions to make the number of statement per language group the same) 2) The original study had different linguistic groups (Polish, Turkish and Austrian-German). In the present replication, we had Brazilian-Portuguese and Korean. 3) The original study measured perceived veracity of the statements using a 14cm line with one pole labeled "definitely false" and the other labeled "definitely true". In the present study, we told participants to choose ANY number between 0 and 7 (including non-integers such as 4.8 or 3.89).
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Andre L. Souza
Location of ProjectRoom 5.130, SEA Building, The University of Texas at Austin
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf PDF

Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information See pdf with results details for the exact numbers (means/sd's)
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking
(#1) By gkshenaut on Sun 05/06/2012 12:21 pm CDT (5 years ago)
Mild vs heavy accent?

I notice in the original study's Experiment 2, a difference was found between perceived mild vs heavy accents such that (when they had been made aware of the purpose of the study) subjects found no difference in credibility between native & mild foreign (as in this replication) but still found reduced credibility for heavy foreign accents. So, it is at least possible that the difference between the original study and the failed replication has to do with how strongly accented the speakers were (and possibly also with how likely it is that subjects could figure out the purpose of the study when not explicitly informed). In other words, perhaps only strongly accented speech reduces credibility.

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published