Differences in Perceptions of News and Source Credibility Based on Reporter Accent: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective A thesis presented to the faculty of the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Sirui Lu August 2015 © 2015 Sirui Lu. All Rights Reserved. This thesis titled Differences in Perceptions of News and Source Credibility Based on Reporter Accent: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective by SIRUI LU has been approved for the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism and the Scripps College of Communication by Jatin Srivastava Associate Professor of Journalism Scott Titsworth Dean, Scripps College of Communication ii ABSTRACT LU, SIRUI, M.S., August 2015, Journalism Differences in Perceptions of News and Source Credibility Based on Reporter Accent: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective Director ofThesis: Jatin Srivastava This thesis examines the news credibility and source credibility based on reporter’s accent from an ELM perspective. The hypotheses proposed that the perceived source and story credibility for stories presented in U.S. accent will be higher than that of stories presented in Chinese accent. Also, perceived source and story credibility of Chinese accented reporter presenting a story about China will be higher than the perceived source and story of the same reporter presenting as story about U.S. events. To test the assumption, 109 undergraduate students from Journalism Program in Ohio University were recruited to participate in the 2X2 matched-guise experiment. The results suggested that there were no significant differences in story and source credibility based on reporter accent and the location of the story. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my parents and my grandparents. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 5 2.1: News Quality ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2: Source and Source Credibility ................................................................................. 7 2.3: Factors that Influence Perceived Source Credibility ............................................. 10 2.4: Elaboration Likelihood Model ............................................................................... 14 2.5: Source Factors in Elaboration Likelihood Model .................................................. 15 2.6: Accent as A Peripheral Cue ................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3: Method ............................................................................................................ 22 3.1: Study Design .......................................................................................................... 22 3.2: Pretest .................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1: Pretest: Participants and Measurements ......................................................... 22 3.3: Main Study ............................................................................................................. 23 3.3.1: Participants ...................................................................................................... 23 v 3.3.2: Materials and Manipulation ............................................................................ 24 3.3.3: Dependent Variables ....................................................................................... 25 3.3.4: Procedure ........................................................................................................ 26 3.3.5: Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 27 Chapter 4: Result............................................................................................................... 28 4.1: Pretest Results ........................................................................................................ 28 4.2.2: Story Location and Source and Story Credibility ........................................... 35 5.2: Speaker Accent, Story Location, and News Credibility ........................................ 43 5.3: Limitations and Future Directions for Research .................................................... 44 References ......................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix A: Sample Stories in the Pretest ....................................................................... 53 Appendix B: Selected Stories for the Selected Story........................................................ 59 vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Independent variables t-test for qualities between US and China version of the carbon dioxide emission story. ......................................................................................... 29 Table 2 Independent variables t-test for audio qualities between the U.S. accent and China accent recordings. ................................................................................................... 30 Table 3 The gender and educational level of the main experiment participants. ............. 31 Table 4 Crosstabs of demographics for four conditions. Figures in each cell present the number of participants in that category. ........................................................................... 31 Table 5 Independent t-test for credibility qualities between condition 3(U.S. story presented by Chinese accent) and condition 4(U.S. story presented by U.S. accent). ..... 33 Table 6 Independent t-test for credibility qualities between condition 1(China story presented by Chinese accent) and condition 2(China story presented by U.S. accent). ... 34 Table 7 Independent t-test for individual source credibility qualities between condition 3(U.S. story presented by Chinese accent) and condition 4(US story present by U.S. accent). .............................................................................................................................. 34 Table 8 Independent t-test for individual source credibility qualities between condition 1(China story presented by Chinese accent) and condition 2 (China story presented by U.S. accent). ...................................................................................................................... 35 Table 9 Independent t-test for credibility qualities between condition1 (China story presented by Chinese accent) and condition 3 (U.S. story presented by Chinese accent).36 vii Table 10 Independent t-test for source credibility qualities between condition1 (China story presented by Chinese accent) and condition 3 (U.S. story presented by Chinese accent). .............................................................................................................................. 37 Table 11 Significant Pearson correlations coefficient for correlations between familiarity with China, familiarity with Chinese language, and individual items on source credibility. ........................................................................................................................................... 38 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The accents of the foreign correspondents have been an obvious detriment to their career. Lev-ari and Keysar (2010) found that a foreign accent undermines a person’s credibility in ways that the speaker and the listeners do not consciously realize. They argued that accent might reduce the credibility of non-native job seekers, eyewitnesses, reporters or people taking calls in foreign call centers. The relationship between one’s accent and his perceived credibility is studied by many language attitudes researchers to discover the reactions to foreign accented speech. For example, some such studies that have analyzed the reactions to foreign accents include studies analyzing evaluations of Malaysian accented speech (Gill, 1994), Japanese accented speech (Cargile & Giles, 1998), and Chinese accented speech (Cargile, 1997). Gill’s study (1994) used four different speakers for three kinds of accent: North- American accent, British accent and Malaysian accent to record lecture messages. Participants (all of them were standard North American English accented speaking) were asked to credit these lectures after listening to the recordings. The results show that Malaysian accent was rated the least favorable by the participants, while British was more favorable than Malaysian but less favorable than North American accent. Cargile and Giles’ Japanese accented speech study (1998) is a 4X2 factorial design with manipulation of the speaker’s accent, fluency and message content. The speaker’s accents were manipulated by making one Japanese speaker record the same messages with four target accents (standard American vs. moderate Japanese vs. heavy Japanese vs. heavy/ disfluent Japanese). The result shows that the standard English speaking participant rated the Japanese speaker as less attractive than the American speaker. In Cargile’s Chinese accented speech study (1997), the speaker recorded a fictional employment interview with both American-accented English and Chinese- accented English. The research result from both Anglo and Asian participants shows that Chinese-accented speaker was less attractive than the American-accented speaker after the participants listened to the recordings. Although language attitudes research has investigated a variety of accents and language, all of these studies demonstrated biased evaluation of non-standard language speakers: speakers of non-standard language received negative evaluations. However, this biased evaluation may not be observed in all cases involving foreign accents. Some foreign accents can be favorable in certain situations. When the stereotype of the race associated with the accent is positive, people tend to trust the speaker more. For example, many people in United States (U.S.) may perceive someone with a British accent to be well-educated and smart. Findings from Edwards’ (1977) study about students’ reaction to Irish regional accent demonstrate this favorable bias. Still, many of the studies that demonstrate the favorable traits of nonstandard accents are associated with groups with overall positive stereotypes. But what if a group does not have enough positive stereotypes? Is there any chance for non-standard accented reporters from less popular cultures to demonstrate favorable traits? The researcher assumes that in some journalism cases, an accent from a less popular culture can demonstrate favorable traits. The researcher proposes that when the reporter’s accent 2