Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization.

Abstract

The categories that social targets belong to are often activated automatically. Most studies investigating social categorization have used visual stimuli or verbal labels, whereas ethnolinguistic identity theory posits that language is an essential dimension of ethnic identity. Language should therefore be used for social categorization. In 2 experiments, using the "Who Said What?" paradigm, the authors investigated social categorization by using accents (auditory stimuli) and looks (visual stimuli) to indicate ethnicity, either separately or in combination. Given either looks or accents only, the authors demonstrated that ethnic categorization can be based on accents, and the authors found a similar degree of ethnic categorization by accents and looks. When ethnic cues of looks and accents were combined by creating cross categories, there was a clear predominance of accents as meaningful cues for categorization, as shown in the respective parameters of a multinomial model. The present findings are discussed with regard to the generalizability of findings using one channel of presentation (e.g., visual) and the asymmetry found with different presentation channels for the category ethnicity.

Does ethnicity matter? The impact of stereotypical expectations on in-service teachers’ judgments of students

“…Implicit stereotypes are defined as strong cognitive associations between a stereotyped group and the attributes the members share (Blair and Banaji 1996). Research has shown that a person's accent also triggers stereotypes because ethnic background is often indicated by a particular accent (Rakić et al 2011), which might be especially important when it comes to ethnic minority students. Hence, the accent of ethnic minority students might be one component inherent in stereotypes, which, in turn, may result in lower language proficiency ratings and might be less prevalent in mathematical achievement.…”

Communication and group life: How language and symbols shape intergroup relations

“…Indeed, data suggest that accents can be even more powerful indicators of category membership than visible ethnic features (Rakić, Steffens, & Mummendey, 2011). When members of nonstigmatized groups interact with stigmatized outgroups, they sometimes engage in linguistic divergence to reinforce their group memberships.…”

Ethnic dissimilarity predicts belonging motive frustration and reduced organizational attachment

“…Ethnicity, as we understand it here, is not reducible to ancestry, genetics, skin color or race (Hirschman, 2004): Ethnicities are social categories that people attribute to themselves and each other (Turner et al, 1987). Although individuals may develop stable ethnic identities based on a variety of information and influences, ethnic categorizations in daily social interaction are likely to be much more fluid and informal (Jenkins, 1994;Okamura, 1981), based on contextual similarities and differences in observable (e.g., visible or audible) characteristics such as skin color or use of language (Maddox & Chase, 2004;Rakić et al, 2011). Thus, as suggested in SCT (Turner et al, 1987), we argue that being ethnically dissimilar in a group is a salient social situation that may differentially frustrate or satisfy these two motives.…”

“…These criteria are often used to categorize others in initial social interactions (Maddox & Chase, 2004;Rakić et al, 2011). Moreover, in the context of Study 2 (i.e., diverse international business school in Britain), it is likely that students are identified with either a high status majority group (Anglo) or a low status minority group (non-Anglo) based on these two characteristics, rather than identified with more finely-grained subcategories (Guillaume et al, 2014).…”

“…We focus on ethnic dissimilarity, in particular, because group members commonly categorize one another into ethnic categories based on observable surface-level differences early in group life, and ethnicity is a prototypical attribute of "diversity" (Daniels, Neale, & Greer, 2017;Mannix & Neale, 2005). Ethnic categorizations in daily social interaction are fluid and informal (Jenkins, 1994;Okamura, 1981) and are based on contextual similarities and differences in observable (e.g., visible or audible) characteristics such as skin color or use of language (Maddox & Chase, 2004;Rakić, Steffens, & Mummendey, 2011).…”