Development A Level

1. Theory/ies on which the study is based

• Accents influence listeners' impressions of speakers (Giles, Hewstone, Ryan & Johnson, 1987; Giles and Powesland, 1975).
• Accent evaluation depends on sociolinguistic context (Giles and Coupland, 1991).
• Standard accents are viewed more positively than non-standard accents, particularly in contexts like job interviews or medical consultations (Kalin, 1982).
• Urban accents are rated more negatively, while foreign accents can undermine credibility (Giles, 1970; Levi-Ari & Keysar, 2010).

2. Background to the study

• Accent influence in legal contexts is understudied.
• Seggie (1983) found accent influenced guilt attributions in Australian raters.
• Brummie accent often negatively evaluated (Giles, 1970; Giles, Baker, & Fielding, 1975).
• Race also impacts guilt attributions (Pfeifer & Ogloff, 1991; Stewart, 1980; Gordon, 1993).

3. Research method

• Lab experiment with varied accent, race, and crime type conditions.
• Used independent measures design.

4. Sample

• 119 White undergraduate psychology students from University College–Worcester.
• Excluded Birmingham natives.

5. Outline of the procedure/study

• Participants listened to a police interview with varied accents, races, and crimes.
• Guises manipulated via transcript alterations.
• Rating scales used for guilt and speech evaluation.

6. Key findings

• Brummie suspects rated guiltier than RP suspects.
• Interaction: Brummie accent/Black suspect/blue-collar elicited highest guilt ratings.
• Suspects' perceived Superiority and Attractiveness predicted guilt ratings.

7. Possible conclusions

• Accents influence guilt attributions in British context.
• Non-standard accents lead to higher guilt perceptions.
• Brummie-accented suspects more likely seen as guilty.
• Superiority and Attractiveness predict guilt perceptions.
• Accent effects may vary based on evidentiary context and other social markers.