Two experiments examined the effects of processing fluency—that is, the ease with which speech is processed—on language attitudes toward native‐ and foreign‐accented speech. Participants listened to an audio recording of a story read in either a Standard American English (SAE) or Punjabi English (PE) accent. They heard the recording either free of noise or mixed with background white noise of various intensity levels. Listeners attributed more solidarity (but equal status) to the SAE than the PE accent. Compared to quieter listening conditions, noisier conditions reduced processing fluency, elicited a more negative affective reaction, and resulted in more negative language attitudes. Processing fluency and affect mediated the effects of noise on language attitudes. Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications are discussed.

Two experiments tested the prediction that heavy foreign-accented speakers are evaluated more negatively than mild foreign-accented speakers because the former are perceived as more prototypical (i.e., representative) of their respective group and their speech disrupts listeners' processing fluency (i.e., is more difficult to process). Participants listened to a mild or heavy Punjabi-(Study 1) or Mandarin-accented (Study 2) speaker. Compared to the mildaccented speaker, the heavy-accented speaker in both studies was attributed less status (but not solidarity), was perceived as more prototypical of their respective group, disrupted listeners' processing fluency, and elicited a more negative affective reaction. The negative effects of accent strength on status were mediated by processing fluency and sequentially by processing fluency and affect, but not by prototypicality. Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications are discussed.

No abstract

PURPOSE Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a controversial issue. The present study aimed to explore physician behaviors during an unannounced standardized patient encounter that was part of a randomized controlled trial to educate physicians using a prostate cancer screening, interactive, Web-based module.METHODS Participants included 118 internal medicine and family medicine physicians from 5 health systems in California, in 2007California, in -2008. Control physicians received usual education about prostate cancer screening (brochures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Intervention physicians participated in the prostate cancer screening module. Within 3 months, all physicians saw unannounced standardized patients who prompted prostate cancer screening discussions in clinic. The encounter was audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Authors analyzed physician behaviors around screening: (1) engagement after prompting, (2) degree of shared decision making, and (3) final recommendations for prostate cancer screening. RESULTSAfter prompting, 90% of physicians discussed prostate cancer screening. In comparison with control physicians, intervention physicians showed somewhat more shared decision making behaviors (intervention 14 items vs control 11 items, P <.05), were more likely to mention no screening as an option (intervention 63% vs control 26%, P <.05), to encourage patients to consider different screening options (intervention 62% vs control 39%, P <.05) and seeking input from others (intervention 25% vs control 7%, P <.05).CONCLUSIONS A brief Web-based interactive educational intervention can improve shared decision making, neutrality in recommendation, and reduce PSA test ordering. Engaging patients in discussion of the uses and limitations of tests with uncertain value can decrease utilization of the tests.

The study of language attitudes is concerned with the social meanings people assign to language and its users. With roots in social psychology nearly a century ago, language attitudes research spans several academic disciplines and draws on diverse methodological approaches. In an attempt to integrate this work and traverse disciplinary boundaries and methodological proclivities, we propose that language attitudes—as a unified field—can be organized into five distinct—yet interdependent and complementary—lines of research: documentation, explanation, development, consequences, and change. After highlighting some of the key findings that have emerged from each area, we discuss several opportunities and challenges for future research.