Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T16:49:19.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring language attitudes in context: Exploring the potential of the Personalized Implicit Association Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Laura Rosseel ,
Dirk Speelman  and
Dirk Geeraerts
Laura Rosseel*
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Speelman
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Geeraerts
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Belgium
*
Address for correspondence: Laura Rosseel KU Leuven Blijde-Inkomstraat 21-bus 3308 3000 Leuven, Belgiumlaura.rosseel@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After decades of relative methodological stagnation, language attitude research is witnessing an influx of new experimental methods originally developed in social psychology. One such measure is the Personalized Implicit Association Test (P-IAT), a reaction-time-based method that measures the association between two concepts. The P-IAT has been used successfully to measure language attitudes, yet presents a number of challenges, like the fact that it measures attitudes void of linguistic or interactional context. This article aims to address that challenge and introduces a contextualized version of the P-IAT, which was used alongside an explicit measurement to explore attitudes towards varieties of Dutch in formal vs. informal settings. While the explicit attitudes show the expected pattern of preference for the standard variety in formal contexts, results from the implicit measurement are not as clear-cut. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and reflect on consequences for future sociolinguistic research using the P-IAT. (Personalized Implicit Association Test (P-IAT), context dependence of language attitudes, sociolinguistics)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 429 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a FWO fellowship held by the first author. We would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. Thanks also to Adriaan Spruyt for his helpful comments on the design of the study and to our respondents for their time and interest.

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, Dominic, & Hogg, Michael A. (1987). Language attitudes, frames of reference, and social identity: A Scottish dimension. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6(3–4): 201–13.Google Scholar
Albarracín, Dolores; Wang, Wei; Li, Hong; & Noguchi, Kenji (2008). Structure of attitudes: Judgments, memory, and implications for change. In Crano, William D. & Prislin, Radmilla (eds.), Attitudes and attitude change, 19–39. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (2005). Europe's sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In Delbecque, Nicole, Van der Auwera, Johan, & Geeraerts, Dirk (eds.), Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, 7–42. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blair, Irene V.; Ma;, Jennifer E. & Lenton, Allison P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(5):828–41.Google Scholar
Bohner, Gerd; Siebler, Franki; Gonzalez, Roberto; Haye, Andrés; & Schmidt, Eike A. (2008). Situational flexibility of in-group-related attitudes: A single category IAT study of people with dual national identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(3):301–17.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine (2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82(1):32–64.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine (2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change 21(1):135–56.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine (2010). The effect of speaker information on attitudes toward (ING). Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(2):214–23.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine (2012). The Implicit Association Test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua 122(7):753–63.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine, & McCullough, Elizabeth A. (2015). Perceived foreign accent as a predicator of face-voice match. In Prikhodkine, Alexei & Preston, Dennis R. (eds.), Responses to language varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes, 175–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cargile, Aaron C. (1997). Attitudes toward Chinese-accented speech: An investigation in two contexts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16(4):434–43.Google Scholar
Cargile, Aaron C.; Giles, Howard; Ryan, Ellen B.; & Bradac, James J. (1994). Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual model and new directions. Language & Communication 14(3):211–36.Google Scholar
Creber, Clare, & Giles, Howard (1983). Social context and language attitudes: The role of formality-informality of the setting. Language Sciences 5(2):155–61.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Nilanjana, & Greenwald, Anthony G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(5):800–814.Google Scholar
De Caluwe, Johan (2009). Tussentaal wordt omgangstaal in Vlaanderen. Nederlandse Taalkunde 14(1):8–25.Google Scholar
De Houwer, Jan; Teige-Mocigemba, Sarah; Spruyt, Adriaan; & Moors, Agnes (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135(3):347–68.Google Scholar
Delarue, Steven, & Lybaert, Chloé (2016). The discursive construction of teacher identities: Flemish teachers’ perceptions of Standard Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28(3):219–65.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4):453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:87–100.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition 25(5):603–37.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H.; Sanbonmatsu, David M.; Powell, Martha C.; & Kardes, Frank R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2):229–38.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Melissa J., & Bargh, John A. (2007). Beyond the attitude object: Automatic attitudes spring from object-centered-contexts. In Wittenbrink, Bernd & Schwarz, Norbert (eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes, 216–46. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Foroni, Francesco, & Mayr, Ulrich (2005). The power of a story: New, automatic associations from a single reading of a short scenario. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12(1):139–44.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, & Docherty, Gerard (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34(4):409–38.Google Scholar
Fraeters, Fons, & Van Avermaet, Annie (2010). Nederlandse Uitspraakoefeningen. Leuven: Interfacultair Instituut voor Levende Talen, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Gallois, Cindy, & Callan, Victor J. (1985). Situational influences on perceptions of accented speech. In Forgas, Joseph P. (ed.), Language and social situations, 159–73. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, & Bodenhausen, Galen V. (2005). Accessibility effects on implicit social cognition: The role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(5):672–85.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, & Bodenhausen, Galen V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin 132:692–731.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, & De Houwer, Jan (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In Reis, Harry T. & Judd, Charles M. (eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, 2nd edn., 283–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, Deutsch, Roland, & Banse, Rainer (2011). Response interference tasks as indirect measures of automatic associations. In Klauer, Karl C., Voss, Andreas, & Stahl, Christoph (eds.), Cognitive methods in social psychology, 78–123. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, & Sritharan, Rajees (2010). Determinants and principles of variations in implicit measures. In Gawronski, Bertram & Payne, B. Keith (eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory and applications, 216–40. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk (2017). Het kegelspel der taal: De naoorlogse evolutie van de Standaardnederlandsen. In De Sutter, Gert (ed.), De vele Ggezichten van het Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Een inleiding tot de variatietaalkunde, 100–120. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk; Grondelaers, Stefan; & Speelman, Dirk (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, & Van de Velde, Hans (2013). Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch. In Hinskens, Frans & Taeldeman, Johan (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 3: Dutch, 532–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie (2016). Verticale structuur en dynamiek van het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Een empirische studie in Ieper, Gent en Antwerpen. Ghent: Ghent University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Ryan, Ellen B. (1982). Prolegomena for developing a social psychological theory of language attitudes. In Ryan, Ellen B. & Giles, Howard (eds.), Attitudes towards language variation: Social and applied contexts, 208–23. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Govan, Cassandra L., & Williams, Kipling D. (2004). Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(3):357–65.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G.; McGhee, Debbie E.; & Schwartz, Jordan L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6):1464–80.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G.; Nosek, Brian A.; & Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Attitudes and Social Cognition 85(2):197–216.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, & Kristiansen, Tore (2013). On the need to access deep evaluations when searching for the motor of standard language change. In Kristiansen & Grondelaers, 9–52.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, & Speelman, Dirk (2013). Can speaker evaluation return private attitudes towards stigmatised varieties? Evidence from emergent standardisation in Belgian Dutch. In Kristiansen & Grondelaers, 171–91.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan; van Hout, Roeland; & van Gent, Paul (2016). Destandardization is not destandardization: Revising standardness criteria in order to revisit standard language typologies in the Low Countries. Taal en Tongval 68(2):119–49.Google Scholar
Gschwendner, Tobias; Hofmann, Wilhelm; & Schmitt, Manfred (2008). Differential stability: The effects of acute and chronic construct accessibility on the temporal stability of the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Individual Differences 29(2):70–79.Google Scholar
Hay, Jen; Nolan, Aaron; & Drager, Katie (2006). From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. Linguistic Review 23(3):351–79.Google Scholar
Houben, Karijn, & Wiers, Reinout W. (2006). Assessing implicit alcohol associations with the Implicit Association Test: Fact or artifact? Addictive Behaviors 31(8):1346–62.Google Scholar
Huybrechts, Greet; Decoster, W.; Goeleven, A.; Lembrechts, D.; Manders, E.; & Zink, I. (1998). Articulatie in de praktijk: Consonanten. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Huybrechts, Greet; Decoster, W.; Goeleven, A.; Lembrechts, D.; Manders, E.; & Zink, I. (1999). Articulatie in de praktijk: Vocalen en diftongen. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Impe, Leen, & Speelman, Dirk (2007). Vlamingen en hun (tussen)taal: Een attittudineel mixed guise-onderzoek. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid- Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- En Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 16:109–28.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore, & Grondelaers, Stefan (eds.) (2013). Language (de)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental studies. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Ravindranath, Maya; Weldon, Tracey; Baranowski, Maciej; & Nagy, Naomi (2011). Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4):431–63.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez (2007). Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society 36(4):533–54.Google Scholar
Lowery, Brian S.; Hardin, Curtis D.; & Sinclair, Stacey (2001). Social influence effects on automatic racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(5):842–55.Google Scholar
Lybaert, Chloé (2014). Het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Percepties en attitudes van een spraakmakende generatie. Ghent: Ghent University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Martin, Dan (2015). IAT: Functions to use with data from the Implicit Association Test. R package version 0.2. Online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=IAT.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Jason P.; Nosek, Brian A.; & Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2003). Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132(3):455–69.Google Scholar
Moors, Agnes; De Houwer, Jan; Hermans, Dirk; Wanmaker, Sabine; van Schie, Kevin; Van Harmelen, Anne-Laura; De Schryver, Maarten; De Winne, Jeffrey; & Brysbaert, Marc (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, dominance, and age of acquisition for 4300 Dutch words. Behavior Research Methods 45(1):169–77.Google Scholar
Nelson, Larry R.; Signorella, Margaret L.; & Botti, Karin G. (2016). Accent, gender, and perceived competence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(2):166–85.Google Scholar
Olson, Michael A., & Fazio, Russell H. (2004). Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: Personalizing the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(5):653–67.Google Scholar
Pantos, Andrew J. (2012). Defining the cognitive mechanisms underlying reactions to foreign accented speech: An experimental approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10(2):427–53.Google Scholar
Pantos, Andrew J., & Perkins, Andrew W. (2012). Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(1):3–20.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., & Briñol, Pablo (2009). Implicit ambivalence: A meta-cognitive approach. In Petty, Richard E., Fazio, Russell H., & Briññol, Pablo (eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures, 119–61. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (2001). Stochastic phonology. GLOT 5(6):1–13.Google Scholar
Pharao, Nicolai; Maegaard, Marie; Møller, Janus S.; & Kristiansen, Tore (2014). Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different prosodic contexts. Language in Society 43(1):1–31.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen (2008). Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. (2010). Variation in language regard. In Zeigler, Evelyn, Gilles, Peter, & Scharloth, Joachim (eds.), Variatio delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation (für Klaus J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag), 7–27. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Price, Susan; Fluck, Michael; & Giles, Howard (1983). The effect of language of testing on bilingual pre-adolescents’ attitudes towards Welsh and varieties of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3(2–3):149–61.Google Scholar
Redinger, Daniel (2010). Language attitudes and code-switching behaviour in a multilingual educational context : The case of Luxembourg. York: The University of York PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Richeson, Jennifer A., & Ambady, Nalini (2001). Who's in charge? Effects of situational roles on automatic gender bias. Sex Roles 44(9–10):493–512.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Laura (2017). New approaches to measuring the social meaning of language variation: Exploring the Personalized Implicit Association Test and the Relational Responding Task. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Laura; Speelman, Dirk; & Geeraerts, Dirk (2018). Measuring language attitudes using the Personalized Implicit Association Test: A case study on regional varieties of Dutch in Belgium. Journal of Linguistic Geography 6(1):20–39.Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., & Lee, Matthew R. (2002). Implicit and explicit consequences of exposure to violent and misogynous rap music. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 5(2):133–50.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition 25(5):638–56.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert, & Bohner, Gerd (2001). The construction of attitudes. In Tesser, Abraham & Schwarz, Norbert (eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes, 436–57. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Soukup, Barbara (2013a). The measurement of ‘language attitudes’: A reappraisal from a constructionist perspective. In Kristiansen & Grondelaers, 251–66.Google Scholar
Soukup, Barbara (2013b). On matching speaker (dis)guises: Revisiting a methodological tradition. In Kristiansen & Grondelaers, 267–85.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk; Spruyt, Adriaan; Impe, Leen; & Geeraerts, Dirk (2013). Language attitudes revisited: Auditory affective priming. Journal of Pragmatics 52:83–92.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Adriaan; Clarysse, Jeroen; Vansteenwegen, Debora; Baeyens, Frank; & Hermans, Dirk (2010). Affect 4.0: A free software package for implementing psychological and psychophysiological experiments. Experimental Psychology 57(1):36–45.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Adriaan; Hermans, Dirk; De Houwer, Jan; & Eelen, Paul (2002). On the nature of the affective priming effect: Affective priming of naming responses. Social Cognition 20(3):227–56.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2013). It don't go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(2):200–237.Google Scholar
Staum Casasanto, Laura (2008). Does social information influence sentence processing? In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 799–804. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Steele, Jennifer R., & Ambady, Nalini (2006). ‘Math is hard!’: The effect of gender priming on women's attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(4):428–36.Google Scholar
Street, Richard L. Jr.; Bradt, Robert; & Lee, Raymond (1984). Evaluative responses to communicators: The effects of speech rate, sex and interaction context. The Western Journal of Speech Communication 48(1):14–21.Google Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, Sarag; Klauer, Karl C.; & Sherman, Jeffrey W. (2010). A practical guide to Implicit Association Tests and related tests. In Gawronski, Bertram & Payne, B. Keith (eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory and applications, 117–39. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Timmermans, Bernadette (2008). Klink klaar: Uitspraak- en intonatiegids voor het Nederlands. Leuven: Davidsfonds.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, Eric, & Swanson, Jane (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence 27(1):41–52.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild, & Cuvelier, Pol (2007). The perception of exclusion and proximity through the use of standard Dutch, ‘tussentaal’ and dialect in Flanders. In Cuvelier, Pol, du Plessis, Theodorus, Meeuwis, Michael, & Teck, Lut (eds.), Multilingualism and exclusion: Policy, practice and prospects, 241–56. Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Van De Mieroop, Dorien; Zenner, Eline; & Marzo, Stefania (2016). Standard and Colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of address: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 50(1):31–64.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, Sarah (2013). Feiten en fictie: Een sociolinguïstische analyse van het taalgebruik in fictieseries op de Vlaamse openbare oOmroep (1977–2012). Antwerp: University of Antwerp PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Van Maele, Geert (1984). Handleiding bij de uitspraakleer. Lier: Van In.Google Scholar
Walker, Abby; García, Christina; Cortés, Yomi; & Campbell-Kibler, Katherine (2014). Comparing social meanings across listener and speaker groups: The indexical field of Spanish /s/. Language Variation and Change 26(2):169–89.Google Scholar
Wittenbrink, Betram; Judd, Charles M.; & Park, Bernadette (2001). Spontaneous prejudice in context: Variability in automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(5):815–27.Google Scholar