Evaluative reactions of American born counselor trainees to speakers of network-, Chinese-, and Spanish-accented English...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Evaluative reactions of American born counselor trainees to speakers of network-, Chinese-, and Spanish-accented English speech and to written ethnic referents an intercultural study
Physical Description:
viii, 105 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Lund, Jennifer Ann
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Student counselors -- Training of -- United States   ( lcsh )
Cross-cultural counseling -- United States   ( lcsh )
Ethnic attitudes -- United States   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1988.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
Jennifer Ann Lund.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 024857228
oclc - 20082594
System ID:
AA00020428:00001

Full Text










EVALUATIVE REACTIONS OF AMERICAN BORN COUNSELOR TRAINEES TO
SPEAKERS OF NETWORK-, CHINESE-, AND SPANISH-ACCENTED ENGLISH SPEECH
AND TO WRITTEN ETHNIC REFERENTS: AN INTERCULTURAL STUDY













By

JENNIFER ANN LUND


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1988


J OF F LIBRAn'FS





























Copyright 1988

by

Jennifer Ann Lund















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This project could not have been completed without the help of my committee. Each of

whom (Drs. Richard D. Downie, Gerardo M. Gonzalez, Robert E. Jester, Janet J. Larsen, and

Norman N. Markel) gave their personal time to read, edit, discuss, and provide encouragement.

From each I learned, for each I am grateful.

It is with appreciation for each of these professors that I submit slice-of-time memories

related to this project. I remember Dr. Downie who with approximately fifteen minutes notice went

over the then final draft in his kitchen on a Sunday (day of rest) evening. I remember Dr. Gonzalez

on a late (as in the department was closed) Monday afternoon giving a truly inspiring and

spontaneous talk regarding quality research. I remember Dr. Jester with delight, we shared and

laughed about I suppose it was philosophy of life while simultaneously talking about MANOVAs

and statistical design. I remember Dr. Markel who actively and enthusiastically played idea-tennis

with me. He served and returned ideas across the net of possibility with ease. This study grew out

of research he has done and I appreciate his considerable time and energy to help me with the

sociolinguistic methodology used in this study.

Last, intentionally, and not least, a warm and very special note of appreciation goes to Dr.

Janet J. Larsen, my chairperson, who has given me unconditional support through all the phases of

this project. This support has included a willingness to read drafts of this manuscript while packing

to go to Panama, before opening her personal mail upon return from Australia, and at 11:00 p.m.

just to alleviate my uneasiness. Her gentle strength, insight, and encouragement have been present

when I was immobilized, when I was on a roll, when I was down, and when I was up. She has










seen me in all lights and has shown her own light upon me and empowered me. I feel priviledged

and thankful for this association and for my association with all these fine folks.

The research reported herein was partially supported by a graduate student research grant

from Commission X of the American Association for Counseling and Development.



















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS _______ _______ iii

ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTERS

ONE INTRODUCTION______________ 1

Statement of Problem___________ 3
Need for the Study____________ 6
Purpose of the Study___________ 10
Definition of Terms_______________________ 10
Organization of the Dissertation_________________ 12

TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE___________ 13

Considerations in Cross-Cultural Counseling 14
Cultural Self-Awareness________ 14
An Existential Theory of Human Nature_________ 15
Issues in Stereotyping and Bias in Counseling Research_ 17
Language Attitude Research_________ 19
Differential Reaction to Language_____________ 20
Differential Reactions to Accented English________ 21
Differential Reactions to Voice Quality and Voice Set___ 22
Differential Reactions to Regional Dialects_________ 23
Differential Reactions to Content by Gender of Rater___ 24
Language Attitude Research Approaches_..... 26
Methodological Issues__________________ 26
Osgood's Model_____________________ 28
Latitude of Attitude Model________________ 29
Ethnic Group Considerations___________________ 30
Hispanic Americans___________________ 30
Cuban Americans____________________ 30
Mexican American Language Attitude Studies_______ 31
Asians in America and Asian American__________ 35
Chinese Americans____________________ 37
Summary 37

THREE METHODOLOGY 40

Purpose of the Study_______________________ 40
Hypotheses___________________________ 41










Population and Sample____________________ 41
The Semantic Differential Scales________________ 42
Materials and Procedures 46
Accents Selected_______ 46
The Speakers for the Recordings______________ 47
Preparation of the Material for Auditory Presentation___ 48
The Passage Chosen for the Recording 48
The Counselor Situation Form_______________ 49
Rating Booklets______________________ 50
Presentation of Materials____ ___ 51
Research Design and Statistical Analyses________ 53

FOUR RESULTS 56

Results of the Analyses......... ... 56
Summary of the Results____________________ 71

FIVE SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS____ 73

Summary_____ ____________. 73
Implications___________________________ 75
Recommendations___________ ___ 76

APPENDICES

A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PERMISSION_ 78
B THE RATING BOOKLET_______________ 80
C PASSAGE READ FOR THE TAPES__________________ 98

REFERENCES 99

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 105














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

EVALUATIVE REACTIONS OF AMERICAN BORN COUNSELOR TRAINEES TO
SPEAKERS OF NETWORK-, CHINESE-, AND SPANISH-ACCENTED ENGLISH
SPEECH AND TO WRITTEN ETHNIC REFERENTS:
AN INTERCULTURAL STUDY

By

Jennifer Ann Lund

December 1988

Chairperson: Dr. Janet J. Larsen
Major Department: Counselor Education

The purpose of this study was to investigate native-born American counselor trainees'

ratings on semantic differential scales as a function of their reactions to ethnic accented speech and

their reactions to written ethnic referents. The purpose also was to compare their ratings of ethnic

accented speech with their ratings of written ethnic referents.

To study whether counselor trainees make differential evaluations of speakers based on

accent, counselor trainees listened and responded to nine voice recordings. Three female speakers

were recorded for each of the following accents: Spanish-accented English, Chinese-accented

English, and network or general American English speakers. Differential evaluation of speakers

based on ethnic accent was significant at the .0001 level.

To study whether counselor trainees make differential evaluations of written ethnic

referents, counselor trainees responded to the counselor situation form with the following written

ethnic referents: new client, new Chinese client, and new Cuban client. The written situation of a

counselor meeting a client for the first time provided the context for the written ethnic referents.

Although counselor trainees' responses were positive toward all three client groups, significant

differences were found only on the evaluative dimension. The positive responses reflected socially

desirable response sets.











Counselor trainees' responses to speech cues and to written ethnic referents associated with

ethnicity were significantly different. When speech cues were compared with written ethnic

referents, the distinction between these stimuli was that speech cues elicited positive and negative

responses and written ethnic referents elicited only positive responses on the semantic differential

scales.

Counselors in training made differential judgments about culturally different people based

on the counselor trainees' ratings of ethnic accented speech. However, they did not differentiate

based on their ratings of the counselor situation form that was comprised of the corresponding

written ethnic referents. The implications of these results is for counselor educators to facilitate

counselor trainees' conscious awareness of their cultural biases and in turn be more cross-culturally

sensitive and effective. Awareness of bias is not sufficient to make a cross-culturally effective

counselor, but it is a critical first step.














CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Because the composition and size of the population of the United States are changing

rapidly, counselors must look at themselves, their values, their beliefs, and their attitudes to

competently serve the ever increasing number of culturally different clients in the United States.

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, counselors have been challenged to study the

appropriateness of services extended to culturally different clients. This challenge has continued.

According to Ivey (1981), "historically, counseling and therapy have been white middle-class

professions implicitly and sometimes explicitly serving to acculturate and inculcate peoples of

diverse backgrounds into a relatively narrow picture of mental health" (p. vii). Ivey (1981) further

stated that "unless we are willing to take our cultural biases and put them on the shelf, we are almost

totally unable to work in the actual counseling and therapy relationship with those who are different

from ourselves" (p. viii).

Counselors must develop a conscious awareness of their biases before they can overcome

their potential for treating clients in culturally biased ways. An important dictate in most counseling

programs is counselor, "know thyself!" In multicultural counseling, this dictate becomes

counselor, "know thyself as a product of a culture!" It is critical that all counselors individually

become aware of their internalized cultural patterns, which include values, beliefs, assumptions,

and attitudes that may negatively influence their effectiveness with culturally different clients.

The reason culture and cultural bias are important in counseling in the United States is

because its population has been changing dramatically and rapidly. As the population changes so

will the clientele. In 1975, more than half of the immigrants to the United States came from Europe

and Canada with a shared (Western) cultural heritage. In 1985, more than 30% of the one-half

million legal immigrants who came to the United States were from Asia. The Filipinos,










Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian immigrants possess a distinctly different

(Eastern) cultural heritage. The next largest group of legal immigrants came from our own

hemisphere. Of these immigrants, 29% arrived from Mexico and the West Indies and only 6%

came from Canada (McCoy & Holmes, 1985).

An even larger number of immigrants arrive illegally each year. Illegal immigrant estimates

range from a low estimate of 1.3 million (based on illegal immigrants actually apprehended by the

United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1984) to a high estimate of 4 million by a

National Academy of Sciences study. Approximately 60% of the illegal immigrants have been

Hispanic and approximately two-thirds of these have been Mexicans (Friedrich, 1985).

Seldom has the United States absorbed so many immigrants who speak the same first

language, Spanish (Church, 1985). The Spanish speaking immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, El

Salvadore, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Venezuela, and the rest of the Central and South

American countries together with Puerto Rico are called Hispanic. Hispanic Americans have a

median age of 23 and maintain a high birth rate (Church, 1985). In 1950, the U.S. Bureau of the

Census counted fewer than 4 million Hispanics. In 1984, the census bureau estimated 17.6

million. Church (1985) noted the following:


Some analysts think that Hispanic Americans by the year 2000 will total 30 to 35
million or 11% to 12% of all U.S. residents vs. 6.4% in 1980. If so, they would
constitute the largest American minority, outnumbering blacks, and, indeed, people
of English, Irish, German, Italian, or any other single ethnic background. (p. 36)

Because the new immigrants are an insistent presence and possess an insistent future,

counselors must respond. The American Association for Counseling and Development's Ethical

Standards (1981) stated, "the member's (counselor's) primary obligation is to respect the integrity

and promote the welfare of the client" (p. 2). Therefore, it is critically important for counselors to

be aware of personal biases or stereotypic attitudes they hold that could interfere in the counseling

process with culturally different clients. This interference in the counseling process occurs when

the counselor's stereotypic attitude or bias toward the client's group prevents the counselor from










confronting and coping with disconfirming evidence produced by the individual client. "Bias

becomes prejudice when the biased person is resistant to information that might lead to a changed

belief' (Schlossberg & Pietrofesa, 1978, p. 23).

In the majority of the studies in the literature regarding bias, prejudice, and stereotypes in

the counseling field, the client's reactions, perceptions, and biases toward various types of

counselors have been examined. Curiously, there was a lack of studies focusing on the counselor's

reactions, perceptions, and biases toward clients.

Counselor's, like all people, internalize their society's cultural patterns, which include

values, beliefs, and attitudes. These internalized cultural patterns often are so deeply ingrained that

counselors tend to "assume that under normal circumstances we [all] think about the world in the

same way, and, therefore, that whatever I [the counselor] say [to you the client] will mean the same

to you as it does to me" (Kohls, 1984, p. 58). This assumption of shared meaning on the part of

the counselor is often a source of misunderstanding and miscommunication in intercultural

interactions and affects the appropriateness and quality of counseling.

To be cross-culturally effective, counselors must establish ways of reaching past their

conscious awareness to their unconscious stereotypic attitudes, that are products of their cultural and

personal histories. Awareness of biases is not sufficient to make a cross-culturally effective

counselor, but it is the critical first step.

Statement of Problem

D. W. Sue and S. Sue (1977) identified three major characteristics of counseling in the

United States that can create sources of conflict for culturally different clients. "First, counselors

often expect their counselee to exhibit some degree of openness, psychological mindedness, or

sophistication" (p. 29). Most theories of counseling taught in the United States emphasize the

client's verbal and emotional expression as a means of attaining insight or a behavioral change.

This counseling process, which has been commonly used, often conflicts with different culturally

defined rules for therapeutic interaction. "Second, counseling is traditionally a one-to-one activity










that encourages clients to talk about or discuss the most intimate aspects of their lives" (p. 29).

Again, cultural norms of behavior may prohibit such verbal expression by the culturally different

client. 'Third, the counseling or therapy situation is often an ambiguous one.... Relatively

speaking, the counseling situation is unstructured and forces the client to be the primary active

participant" (p. 29). The counselor's usual pattern of communicating to the client may directly

conflict with the culturally different client's needs as well as expectations of a counselor. All of

these factors, individually or in interaction with each other, can create misunderstandings arising

from culturally distinct rules of proper communication. This can easily lead to client alienation,

inability to establish trust and rapport, the nonuse of mental health facilities, and early termination of

counseling.

Padilla, Ruiz, and Alvarez (1975) identified three major factors that hindered the formation

of a good counseling relationship with Hispanic clients: a culture-bound barrier, a class-bound

barrier, and a language barrier. Culture-bound values define normality and ascribe mentally healthy

behaviors in terms of both the client's and the counselor's cultural beliefs (which may differ) about

these concepts. Class-bound values tend to collide when the counselors, usually from the middle

class "unwittingly attribute attitudes that result from physical and environmental adversity to the

cultural or individual traits of the (lower class) person" (Pollack & Menacker, 1971, p. 23). The

language barrier stems from the fact that the United States is a monolingual society in which

individuals and institutions in power expect the use of standard English for communication. The

use of nonstandard English may bring unfair discrimination against those speaking it.

Counseling depends on verbal interaction. If the counselor's attitude toward accented

English reflects bias, then it may affect the counselor's perception of the client. Counselor's

perceptions of clients are a result of the interaction in counseling sessions. Spoken Enlgish is the

medium of this interaction in the United States. The spoken language of immigrants, internationals,

and refugees is often accented because they have learned English as a foreign language, possibly in

the home country and/or upon arrival in the United States. As a result, the client who is an









immigrant, refugee, or international may give brief, different, or accented verbal responses that lead

some counselors to impute inaccurate characteristics or motives to the culturally different client.

Spoken language is considered to be an identifying feature of members of a national or

cultural group. In reviewing the results of their classic Canadian study, Lambert, Hodgson,

Gardner, and Fillenbaum (1960) indicated that listeners do have generalized, differential reactions to

speakers of French and English. These generalized reactions constituted attitudes held by the

listeners toward the French and English speaking people in Canada. After conducting a follow-up

study, Anisfield, Bogo, and Lambert (1962) indicated that differential pronunciation of the same

language (English) also is important from the standpoint of the listener and is a factor in differential

personality evaluation. Specifically, Anisfeld et al. (1962) reported that subjects listening to taped

male voices attributed different personality characteristics to the same individuals depending on

whether that individual was speaking his "pure" English or his "accented" English. These two

classic studies in the field of sociolinguistics have served as models for numerous studies.

Sociolinguistic researchers have found that listeners' stereotypic attitudes toward or

perceptions of members of other national or cultural groups do generalize to the language members

from that group use (Lambert et al., 1960; Anisfeld et al., 1962). These stereotypic attitudes were

measured by having subjects listen to audiotaped samples of voice and then having them rate the

speakers on semantic differential scales. These sociolinguistic researchers demonstrated that bias

can be measured by having listeners rate tape recorded samples of spoken language. This

sociolinguistic method for assessing bias has used ethnically accented voice samples as the stimuli

for subjects' responses.

However, the method for assessing bias in the field of counseling has been quite different.

With written ethnic referents as the stimulus, attitude surveys have been given to elicit the subjects'

attitudes toward culturally different persons. According to Edwards cited in Sax (1974), individuals

have unconscious tendencies to respond to written attitude surveys in systematic ways that enhance

their own social desirability. "Social desirability is the subject's motivation to do the 'right thing' or










to perform well in a situation in which he knows his behavior is being evaluated" (Huck, Cormnier,

& Bounds, 1974, p. 266). According to Sax (1974), social desirability does not mean subjects

fake their responses deliberately, but rather they respond subconsciously in such a way as to

increase their own social desirability. When socially desirable response sets are in operation, they

introduce a source of error by masking the subject's true attitude. Sociolinguistic researchers would

argue that responses to speech cues are more likely to elicit unmasked attitude responses than are

direct attitude questionnaires. Lambert et al. (1960) and Anisfeld et al. (1962) indicated that

listeners' responses to spoken language elicited unmasked attitudes reflecting listeners' biases.

Taped samples of spoken language have been used successfully by sociolinguists as stimuli

for measuring ethnic attitudes since the research by Lambert et al. (1960). Spoken language is also

the medium for counseling. Since awareness of bias is a prerequisite to being a cross-culturally

effective counselor, it is logical to ask if counselors demonstrate bias in response to ethnically

accented spoken language? Can the classic sociolinguistic methodology be employed to investigate

whether American-born counselors' attitudes toward ethnically accented English speech reflect bias?

Does ethnically accented speech affect the counselors' perceptions of the speakers? Do counselors

whose training includes nonjudgmental listening actually respond with bias to accented speech?

Within the field of counseling, assessing attitudes toward ethnicity has been measured on

written attitude surveys. Obtaining true attitude measures via these written attitude surveys is

problematic when subjects respond in socially desirable ways. Yet, there is controversy regarding

the extent of the role of socially desirable response sets as a source of error (Sax, 1974). It is

important to also investigate whether a written attitude measure reflects counselor bias. It would be

illuminating to know if there is a difference between attitudes measured in response to ethnically

accented taped voices and attitudes measured in response to written ethnic referents?

Need for the Study

The need for this study is related to the ongoing dynamic changes in the U.S. population.

The relatively new field of multicultural counseling has been growing rapidly since 1962. In










multicultural counseling, it is important for counselors to understand themselves as members and

products of particular cultures. It is important to establish ways of reaching past the internalized

cultural patterns that operate in counselors' lives and in counseling sessions. Because spoken

English is the primary medium of counseling in the United States and because we are a country rich

in immigrants and internationals who speak with accents, it has been critical to know if counselors

evaluate clients differently on the basis of their ethnically accented speech as well as on the basis of

written ethnic referents contained in an attitude survey.

Ethnic accents are often the outward, obvious identifier of one's cultural group in the

United States. It is hypothesized that one's deeply ingrained feelings or evaluative thoughts toward

a particular group are projected onto the very audible symbol of that group, their accented speech.

If counselors make differential evaluations of clients based on accented speech, then making these

differential evaluations conscious would permit the counselors to confront their culturally ingrained

biases and in turn be more cross-culturally sensitive and effective.

In contrast to assessing ethnic bias through counselor trainees reactions to ethnically

accented speakers is the more traditional approach of assessing counselors' ethnic attitudes by

written attitude surveys. The counselor trainees' reactions to written situations that vary only in

regard to the specific ethnic reference is a direct approach to assessing their attitudes toward

ethnicity. It is hypothesized that one's deeply ingrained feelings or evaluative thoughts toward a

particular group are less likely to be projected onto an undisguised written attitude measure due to

the influence of social desirability.

Perhaps the most serious pitfall in cross-cultural counseling is the tendency to interpret

behavior appropriate to a person from an unfamiliar culture in terms of the counselor's own culture,

distorting in the process the meaning of the behavior sometimes to the point of labelling the

behavior psychopathological (Wintrob, 1981). Such distortions more often are the product of lack

of awareness or knowledge than of willful ethnocentrism, but the results are the same. Counselors'

good intentions are not sufficient to override ethnocentricism, because being unaware of one's










biases is ultimately the act of being ethnocentric. Multicultural counselors must actively pursue self-

awareness as it relates to their attitudes/judgments regarding their culturally different clients to take

the initial step toward becoming cross-culturally effective counselors.

Interaction problems in counseling frequently are generated by a counselor's lack of

awareness. It is the counselor's responsibility to bring as much self-awareness as possible into the

counseling situation. Self-awareness as it relates to cross-cultural counseling occurs when

counselors learn about the cultural biases of their own behaviors. Counselors, like all individuals,

internalize the cultural patterns (values, beliefs, assumptions) of their society. Insofar as these

cultural patterns are internalized in similar ways by members of a society, the members share a

commonality of culture. At the same time, these cultural patterns also are internalized in individually

different ways that make each person unique. It is important for counselors to understand

themselves and clients both as members of cultural groups and as unique individuals. According to

Casse (1981) in his book, Training for the Cross Cultural Mind. "to understand oneself is maybe

the most challenging endeavour that we [counselors] face" (p. x).

Counselor self-awareness is of primary consideration in cross-cultural counseling and

communication because awareness is a prerequisite to change, to improvement. To know oneself

better culturally is to grow cross-culturally. Cross-cultural counselors must bring as much of their

own unconscious, internalized cultural values, beliefs, and attitudes to consciousness to enhance

their own levels of client acceptance. The danger of counselors not examining their unconscious,

internalized cultural patterns is that these patterns may emerge and influence the perception and

judgment by counselors of culturally different clients whose accents are different.

In a counseling session, it is the counselor's responsibility to create an accepting

atmosphere where the clients feel safe to explore and express their personal awareness. Rogers

(1970) would agree that a critical aspect of a counselor's behavior is to possess and demonstrate an

attitude of acceptance. An accepting attitude serves as a catalyst for the expression of the client's









unedited self. A judgmental or biased attitude based on stereotypes serves only to silence or make

conditional the client's expression of self.

Stereotypic expectations about people from certain cultural groups may bias considerably

the perceiver's (counselor's) attributions regarding the causes of that person's (client's) behavior.

If, as some studies have indicated,


perceivers are more likely to make dispositional inferences (and less likely to make
situational attributions) when observed behavior is consistent with stereotypic
expectations, this bias would in the long run result in subjective confirmation of
those expectations even in the absence of actual support to the maintenance and
persistence of the stereotype. (Hamilton, 1983. p. 108)

The danger of stereotypic attitudes is that they could influence the counselor's ability to

process information about a client who is a member of a different cultural group. These influences

occur in several ways. Certain stereotypic expectancies may focus the counselor's attention on a

particular aspect of the client's behavior, thereby making that aspect of the counseling session more

salient; or these expectancies may lead the counselor to interpret certain client behaviors in a biased

manner, or they may result in a selective retrieval of information about the client from memory.

Stereotypic schemata may also lead the perceiver (counselor) to go beyond the information in certain

specifiable ways. Hamilton (1983) wrote, "well developed stereotypes may result in the perceiver
'seeing' things that were not part of the stimulus configuration, 'filling in the gaps' in terms of the

schema-based expectancies" (p. 108). Stereotyping becomes dangerous when it causes the

perceiver (counselor) to disregard the actual information available in the setting.

Accents are often the outward, obvious identifier of one's cultural group. The listener's

(counselor's) stereotype of and attitude toward that cultural group as identified by accented speech

may reflect bias and may affect the listener's (counselor's) perception of the speaker. Studies in

sociolinguistics have shown that accents can be used to attain a projection of a listemrner's attitude or

bias toward members of particular cultural groups (Anisfeld et al., 1962; Cohen, 1974; Delamere,

1986; DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Giles & St. Clair, 1985; Lambert et al., 1960; Markel, Eisler, &

Reese, 1967; McGinnis & Smitherman, 1978; Parson, 1966; St. Clair & Giles, 1980). College









students and school teachers were the subjects (listeners) for these studies. No such studies were

found that used counselors as subjects. It was valid to investigate whether counselors trained in

nonjudgmental listening would respond differently to rating voices than subjects who did not have

this training.

There was a need to know if counselors who are trained in nonjudgmental listening would

demonstrate bias on the basis of ethnic accented speech. There was also a need to know if

counselors would demonstrate bias on the basis of a written ethnic attitude measure.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate native-born American counselor trainees'

ratings on a semantic differential scale as a function of their reactions to ethnic accented speech and

as a function of their reactions to written ethnic labels. The purpose also was to compare counselor

trainees' ratings of ethnic accented speech with their ratings of written ethnic referents. The major

questions of this investigation focused on whether native-born counselor trainees demonstrate

ethnic bias toward ethnically different people.

Definition of Terms

Many of these terms or definitions, such as "American born" are specific to this study.

Accen "refers to those phonetic variations of sounds within a given language that can vary

without changing the meaning of the word in which the given sound is found" (Stein, 1981, p. 7).

Accent is a characteristic mode of pronunciation associated with one's ethnic or cultural group

membership.

American-born counselor trainees are those persons born in the United States whose parents

were also born in the United States and whose first language was English.

Bias is a term used in clinical judgment to imply prejudgment by a counselor of a client

because of the client's group membership (Lopez, 1983). In this study, bias will be said to be

present if the accented speakers are rated differentially.

Clients are those persons who seek the help of a counselor.










Counselor trainees are graduate students currently enrolled in counseling programs in the

State University System of Florida.

Cross-cultural counseling takes place between a counselor and client who are members of

different cultural groups. Cross-cultural counseling can be used interchangably with multicultural

or intercultural counseling.

General American English is the type of American English

which may be heard with slight variations, from Ohio through the Middle West and
on to the Pacific Coast Living as they do in the region where the process of
dialect mixing has gone the farthest and where the language has achieved
uniformity. (Prator, 1972, p. x)

Hispanic American "replaces terms used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census or others that

denotes ethnicity ('Spanish origin'), language skill ('Spanish speaking'), family name ('Spanish

surname'), or ancestry ('Spanish American')" (Ruiz, 1981, p. 187).

Immigrants are those persons born outside the United States who have come to live

permanently in the United States.

Intercultural study concerns two or more cultures.

Internationals are those persons born outside the United States who have come to live,

work, visit, or study temporarily in the United States. These people maintain their original

citizenship.

Multicultural counseling takes place between a counselor and client who are members of

different cultural groups. Multicultural counseling can be used interchangably with cross-cultural or

intercultural counseling.

Network English is the general American English that most newscasters are encouraged and

trained to speak.

Semantic differential is an objective method for measuring the connotative meaning of

concepts by having an individual rate each concept on a series of likert-type scales, each scale

defined by a pair of polar adjectives, as pleasant/unpleasant or active/passive.









Stereotypes

may be defined as rigid preconceptions we hold about all people who are members of a
particular group whether it be defined along racial, religious, sexual, or other lines. A belief in a
perceived characteristic of the group is applied to all members without regard for individual
variations. (Sue, 1981, p. 44)

Organization of the Dissertation

The remainder of this dissertation is organized into four chapters. Chapter Two is a review

of the relevant literature on multicultural counseling theory; the theory of stereotyping and bias;

issues in multicultural counseling; language and counseling; language attitude research; and specific

ethnic group considerations. Chapter Three presents the methodology of this study, including a

description of the population and sample; the hypotheses; instrumentation; procedures; the research

design; and the statistical analyses. The results of the study are presented in Chapter Four. In

Chapter Five, a summary discussion and recommendations for future research are presented.














CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


In the 1970s and 1980s there has been a growing interest in the area of cross-cultural

counseling. This interest reflects the dynamic changes that the population of the United States is

undergoing. As the population changes so does the clientele. Counselors are interested in better

serving ethnically different clients.

From reviewing the counseling literature specific to cross-cultural counseling, several

considerations emerge for counselors. All these considerations begin with the importance of

cultural self-awareness on the part of the counselor. The issues of counselors' attitudes toward

ethnically different people, stereotyping, and bias dominate the theoretical literature but are rarely

seen as the focus of research studies in counseling.

From reviewing the literature related to cross-cultural communication in anthropology,

linguistics, sociology, and speech many research studies involving ethnicity, stereotypes, bias,

and cross-cultural attitudes were found. These researchers have been engaged in efforts to

understand cross-cultural communication which is directly related to cross-cultural counseling. It is

important to recognize the possible benefits of trying other relavent research approaches. For nearly

30 years, the sociolinguistic researchers have used audiotaped accented voices to elicit subjects'

unmasked responses to ethnicity. Because counseling involves verbal interaction, it is logical to

try a language attitude approach to ethnic attitude research.

In the considerations in cross-cultural counseling section of Chapter Two the following

topics are presented: cultural self-awareness, an existential theory of human nature for counseling,

and issues of stereotyping and bias in counseling research. The section on language attitude

research begins with the classic sociolinguistic study of listeners' attitudinal reactions to speech

cues by Lambert, Hodgson, and Gardner (1960) and follows the historical development of this kind









of research. A discussion of the methodological issues follows in the section on language attitude

research approaches. Ethnic group considerations relevant for this study comprise the next section,

and finally, is a brief summary.

Considerations in Cross-Cultural Counseling

The study of cross-cultural counseling poses multivariate research problems. Bloombaum,

Yamamoto, and James (1968) identified cultural stereotyping by counselors as a major problem in

effective cross-cultural counseling. Sue (1981) defined stereotypes as "rigid preconceptions we

hold about all people who are members of a particular group" (p. 44). Although there have been

studies about clients' stereotypes of counselors, there has been a curious lack of studies regarding

counselor's stereotypes of and perceptions of culturally different clients. Schlossberg (1977) and

others have contended that, to overcome the possible dangers of stereotyping, it is critical for

counselors to become aware of their own biases.

Cultural Self-Awareness

Counselors, like all people, internalize their society's cultural patterns, which include

values, beliefs, and attitudes. These internalized cultural patterns are often so deeply ingrained that

counselors tend to "assume that under normal circumstances we [all] think about the world in the

same way, and, therefore, that whatever I [the counselor] say [to you the client] will mean the same

to you as it does to me" (Kohls, 1984, p. 58). This assumption of shared meaning and world view

on the part of the counselor is often a source of misunderstanding and miscommunication in cross-

cultural interactions and affects the appropriateness and quality of counseling (D.W. Sue & S. Sue,

1981).

To counsel effectively, the counselor must establish ways of reaching past their conscious

awareness. Counselors must recognize their own unconscious attitudes, which are a product of

their cultural and personal histories (Sue, 1981). To serve the ever increasing number of culturally

different clients in the United States, counselors must look at their own values, beliefs, and attitudes

toward culturally different clients to recognize their own biases.









Kinzie (1978) believed that the counselor's lack of cultural self-awareness as well as lack of

awareness concerning the client's culture creates a cultural barrier in therapy. He believes therapist

self-awareness, awareness of the client's culture, an open attitude, continued mutual checking on

the adequacy of communication, and the readiness of the counselor to adjust action and/or style to

meet the client's concept of a healer, are all important for effective cross-cultural counseling. Wrenn

(1962), one of the earliest writers in the field of cross-cultural counseling, has stressed the

importance of counselor self-knowledge and awareness, yet counselors' cultural self-awareness

has been the focus of very few studies. According to Hoopes and Pusch (1979), a large percentage

of any cross-cultural education and training should be directed at stimulating cultural self-

awareness.

To serve the ever increasing number of culturally different clients in the United States,

counselors must look at their own values, beliefs, and attitudes toward culturally different clients to

recognize their biases. Schlossberg (1977) believed that, to some extent, all people (including

counselors) are biased and also are victims of bias. For counselors to consciously confront their

stereotypes and biases requires first uncovering and learning what stereotypes and biases they hold

(Wintrob & Harvey, 1981). Counselor awareness of bias is not sufficient to make a cross-

culturally effective counselor, but it is the critical first step.

An Existential Theory of Human Nature

Existentialism is a philosophical system that provides a global view of humanity. This

system can be traced


to Socrates, who counseled humans to know themselves; to the Stoics, who advised
them to master themselves and to confront destiny; to the teaching of Blaise Pascal of
the seventeenth century; Friedrich Nietzche of the nineteenth century; and Martin
Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Martin Buber of the twentieth century; to the
insights of many other thinkers who devoted their lives to conceptualizing and
explicating the human condition. (Vontress, 1985, p. 207)

Existential thinkers commonly associated with the practice of psychotherapy are Bugenthal, Frankl,

Gendlin, May, Rank, Rogers, and Whitaker (Gendlin, 1973). Existentialism provides cross-









cultural counselors with a view of human beings in the world that both includes and transcends the

cultures from which they come.

"The counselor meeting a client for the first time encounters three aspects in one person-

the universal, the group-specific, and the unique" (Sundberg, 1981, p. 304). Binswanger as cited

in Vontress, (1979) called these three aspects of a person's life experience, Umwelt, Mitwelt, and

Eigenwelt. First, the concept of the Umwelt or physical environment is that human beings,

regardless of their genetic endowment, cultural heritage, or geographical location on the earth, are

all in the same predicament of meeting the very basic survival needs. While meeting these needs,

there also exists the knowledge that all living things in the Umwelt will die, thus creating a universal

existential anxiety. All human beings experience death just as all human beings experience life on

this earth. Human beings have the universal experiences of the Umwelt in common.

Second, the concept of the Mitwelt is that of the interpersonal world of human beings.

Humans are social animals reaching out to communicate and be known by others. It is through the

Mitwelt that humans perpetuate their species, create cultures, and validate their existence. They

grow and learn in a culture and have shared group-specific experiences. Humans are incomplete as

individuals.

The third concept is that of the Eigenwelt or the private, inner world of the individual.

Human beings have unique and individual experiences regardless of whether they come from a

Western culture, which places high value on the individual, or from a Third World culture, which

places high value on the group.

Counselor consciousness of the simultaneous functioning of these three aspects--the

universal, the group-specific, and the individual uniqueness--of a person's life experience is

important in counseling (Vontress, 1985). Both counselor and client bring these three aspects of

life experience to the one-to-one counseling session, yet the counselor and client account for only

two of the five components in the one-to-one counseling equation. The other three components of

this equation are the context, the mode of interaction, and the topic or problem presented (Sundberg,









(Sundberg, 1981). Any one component, any combination, or all five of these components may be

affected by the cultural or group-specific differences between the counselor and client.

Cross-culturally, the group-specific arena (the Mitwelt) is the most likely to contribute to

confusion and misunderstanding in counseling. It is the counselor's responsibility to attend to

cultural differences so that these differences do not hinder the counseling process (D.W. Sue & S.

Sue, 1981). The danger in overemphasizing cultural or group differences is that the universality

and/or uniqueness of the individual client is ignored or disregarded by the counselor. This danger

is manifested when a counselor treats the client like a stereotype, thus ignoring or disregarding the

uniqueness of the individual client.

Realizing that clients and counselors share the same life support system and the same

destiny can be a first step in counselors freeing themselves to interact with clients from their

common life experiences in the Umwelt (Vontress, 1985). Attention to cultural or group-specific

differences of clients in the Mitwelt must be recognized by counselors but not overemphasized to

the exclusion of the client's individual life experiences in the Eigenwelt.

The intertwining of the three aspects of a person's life experience--the universality, group

specificity, and individual uniqueness--is not easily unraveled in counseling or in the research on

cross-cultural counseling. Cross-cultural counseling is a multivariate research problem. Sundberg

(1981) noted that researchers have concentrated most on group contrast phenomenon and generally

have ignored the universal and the unique. "Even statistical procedures are designed so that they

document probable differences rather than commonalities, and the bias of journals seems to be

against articles finding no differences, that is, confirming the null hypothesis" (Sundberg, 1981, p.

304). It is important to try to strike a balance between being overly concerned with cultural or

group differences and not being concerned enough.

Issues of Stereotyping and Bias in Counseling Research

It is normal and human to form impressions of people and situations consistent with one's

own experiences and values. One's first impression of another person fits one's own culturally

learned interpretations of human behavior. These impressions are based on the perceiver's









generalizations about how people behave. Generalizations are necessary for efficient functioning in

life because they serve as guidelines for behavior. As long as a generalization is only tentatively

applied to each new person or situation, it remains a useful, harmless generalization. When a

generalization becomes a rigid preconception held about all people who are members of a particular

group, then it becomes a potentially harmful stereotype. "The danger of stereotypes is that they are

impervious to logic or experience. All incoming information is distorted to fit our preconceived

notions" (Sue, 1981, p. 44).

In the review of the counseling literature on stereotyping, bias, and prejudice, one finds that

the majority of studies have been concerned with clients' differential reactions, perceptions, and

biases toward various categories of counselors, particularly toward counselors' gender and race.

Perhaps the profession (at least as it is reflected in research) has not been sufficiently concerned

with cultural or group-specific differences and their influence on counselors' attitudes toward and

stereotypes of culturally different clients. Although there have been some studies of bias related to

counselor's differential reactions toward clients' gender, no studies were found regarding

counselors' attitudes toward culturally different clients.

Familiar sources of bias include stereotypes related to ethnic group, socioeconomic class,

gender, age, and physical disabilities. Schlossberg (1977) believed that, to some extent, all people

(including counselors) are biased and are also victims of bias. She warned counselors of the

dangers of stereotyping. Stereotyping is dangerous when it serves to limit the counselor's view of

an individual client, when a counselor unconsciously disregards client information because it does

not fit the held stereotype of the client's group.

Stereotypic expectations, attitudes, or biases held by the counselor that are not mediated by

conscious confrontation and training are likely to be detrimental to the client (D.W. Sue & S. Sue,

1981). The influence of the counselor's own cultural and group-specific experience in creating and

maintaining stereotypes and biases for the most part has been overlooked in counseling research,

yet the cross-cultural counseling literature stresses the importance of counselors' self-knowledge









and awareness (Brislin, 1981; Casse, 1979; Pederson, 1981; Pusch, 1979; Sue, 1981; Sundberg,

1981; Vontress, 1985; Wintrob & Harvey, 1981).

Language Attitude Research

Counseling depends on verbal interaction. Counselor's perceptions of clients are a result of

the interaction in counseling sessions. The medium for this interaction in the United States is

usually spoken English. Spoken language is often an identifying feature of members of a national

or cultural group, and any listener's attitude (perception/stereotype) toward members of a national

or cultural group tends to generalize to the language the members of that group typically use. The

spoken language of immigrants and internationals is often accented. It is hypothesized that an

immigrant or international client's brief, different, or accented verbal responses may lead some

counselors to impute inaccurate characteristics or motives to the client Williams (1971) concluded

that researchers need to design studies that will help us understand more about the impact of dialects

and accents on clinical and educational practice.

Accents frequently cause two problems in communication. First, accents may operate as a

barrier to understanding insofar as they disrupt actual information transfer. Second, negative

reactions to certain accents and dialects can cause listeners to stop listening and to disregard the

content of the speaker's message. Results of studies have shown that listeners' attitudes toward

accented language have repeatedly reflected bias and have affected their perceptions of the speakers.

Taylor (1934), Fay and Middleton (1939), and Cantril and Allport (1943) conducted the

earliest research studies regarding listeners' perceptions of speakers based on voice. In these

studies, listeners were found to be only moderately accurate in judging the gender and age of a

speaker and somewhat less accurate in inferring occupation, height, weight, and appearance.

Although no characteristic of the speaker was judged with accuracy consistently, judges tended to

agree more with each other than with actual speaker characteristics. The general agreement among

judges' perceptions suggested that the judges were responding in a stereotypical manner to each

voice.









Differential Reactions to Language

The classic Canadian study by Lambert, Hodgson, and Gardner (1960) was based on the

fact that language is one aspect of behavior common to a variety of individuals and that hearing the

language is likely to arouse in the listener a generalized attitudinal reaction to the group that uses that

particular language. The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of spoken

language for listeners by analyzing the listeners' evaluative reactions to spoken language.

To test their theory, Lambert et al., (1960) translated a 2.5-minute passage of content

neutral French prose into fluent English. The matched guise technique was employed in the taping

of voice samples, which means that one speaker represented two taped voices (the guise). The

passage was recorded in French and English by four, bilingual males for a total of eight taped

voices. One other male recorded French and English passages as filler voices. The ten taped

passages were then heard by French and English Canadians. This study was conducted in Quebec

where there is a history of prejudice and rivalry between the French and English speaking

Canadians. The listening subjects were not informed that the speakers were bilingual and were thus

free to assume that each voice came from a separate individual. The subjects were then asked to

complete a response sheet for each of the ten voices by rating each voice on each of 14 traits on a 6-

point scale. The subjects rated the speakers on scales for physical and personality traits. As

expected, English speaking subjects showed more favorableness to members of their own linguistic

group, the English speakers. At the time, the researchers were surprised to find that the French

speaking subjects also rated the English speakers more favorably.

The French subjects perceived English speakers as having more favorable physical and

personality traits than speakers of their own language. This phenomenon has subsequently been

seen as a reflection of minority self-hatred, which is evidenced by the tendency of an oppressed

minority group (in this study the French) to adopt the stereotyped values of the majority oppressor

group (the English). The English and French subjects in this study may have regarded the French

speakers as members of an inferior group. Since each French and English voice was in fact the

same person, the listeners/raters had based their evaluations on Canadian stereotypes of the two










groups as represented by voice. Lambert et al., (1960) showed that spoken language is an

identifying feature of members of a national or cultural group and any listener's attitude

(perception/stereotype) toward members of a national or cultural group, generalizes to the language

members of that group use.

Differential Reactions to Accented English

In the aforementioned study, different languages (French and English) spoken by the same

speakers were used to elicit differential evaluations of speakers. Anisfeld, Bogo, and Lambert

(1962) extended the 1960 study by Lambert et al. and designed one to examine whether differential

pronunciation of the same language (English) is also important from the standpoint of the "decoder"

or listener and is a factor in differential evaluation of speakers. The matched guise technique was

employed, which means the same four persons were taped twice--once with a standard English

pronunciation and once with a Jewish accent--for a total of eight taped voice samples. The

subjects (114 gentiles and 64 Jewish college students) rated each of eight voices on 14 traits on a 6-

point Likert-type scale (e.g., Intelligence: Very little .:::: Very much). The subjects

were then asked to state what they thought was each speaker's religious affiliation. The authors

reported that subjects attributed different personality characteristics to individuals depending on

whether they spoke their native "pure" English or if they spoke in the "guise" of Jewish-accented

English. All subjects devalued the Jewish-accented guises on height, good looks, and leadership,

regardless of whether the accented guise was correctly identified as Jewish or non-Jewish. Thus, it

was not the Jewish person who was evaluated to be shorter, less good looking, and lacking in

leadership qualities, but the person with an accent. The researchers concluded that the differential

evaluation of speakers resulted essentially from the fact that the "accented" English aroused certain

perceptual hypotheses that had been acquired through previous experience with people who speak

English with an accent (p. 228). In other words, the linguistically naive decoders or subjects were

sensitive to "accented" pronunciation of their language, which aroused the stereotype "immigrant,"

and determined their perceptions of the speakers. The gentile subjects did not identify the Jewish-









accented voices as more favorable on any of the 14 traits, whereas the Jewish subjects did rate the

Jewish-guised voices more favorably on sense of humor, entertainingness, and kindness.

Jewish subjects categorized many more voices, even those speaking standard Canadian

English, as being Jewish than did gentile subjects. All of the speakers were Jewish but spoke

standard Canadian English in their daily lives. Perhaps the Jewish subjects were more finely attuned

to the nuances of accent, and therefore, detected a Jewish accent underlying the standard English

voices. For accent studies, the matched guise technique is limited and would only be appropriate

for use with speakers who can convincingly speak in accented speech and in a standard form. Most

speakers speak more naturally in one guise than the other, therefore, voice samples from individuals

who put on their groups' accent may sound less natural or even stilted to subjects.

Differential Reactions to Voice Qualities and Voice Set

Voice set and voice qualities are distinguishable aspects of the speech act (Trager, 1958).

Voice set, as defined by Trager (1958), "involves the physiological and physical peculiarities

resulting in the patterned identificaiton of individuals as members of a societal group and as a

person of a certain sex, age, state of health" (p. 4). Dialect and accent are aspects of voice set.

Trager (1958) defined voice qualities as "recognizable as actual speech events, phenomena that can

be sorted out from what is said and heard. The voice qualities noted so far are these: pitch range..

Articulation control.., tempo" (p. 4).

In a 1962 study, Markel, Meisels, and Houck tested the hypothesis that specific

impressions of personality are determined by voice qualities. Because schizophrenics have

distinct voice qualities, it was predicted and results confirmed that if content and voice set were held

constant that there would be significant differences between ratings of schizophrenics and

nonschizophrenic readers on the potency and activity factors of the semantic differential but not on

the evaluative factor. The specific impressions of the speaker's physical characteristics and

demeanor were operationally defined as ratings between adjective pairs on the potency and activity

factors from the semantic differential. Ten schizophrenic patients and 11 nonschizophrenic patients

in a county hospital in New York were taped reading a content neutral passage. The ratings of the










taped voices were made by 65 psychology students at the University of Buffalo. The results

confirmed the hypothesis that specific impressions of a speaker's physical characteristics and

demeanor are determined by the speaker's voice qualities, and that adjective pairs representing the

potency factor (large/small, strong/weak, and heavy/light) and representing activity factor

(calm/agitated, relaxed/tense, and passive/active) are sensitive to these differences. For example,

schizophrenics' voices were judged to be significantly more potent than nonschizophrenics' voices,

and the group of schizophrenic voices perceived to be nonschizophrenic were judged as being the

most potent. "With additional confirmation of this finding, the degree of rated potency of voice

qualities may well be used as an adjunctive 'sign' in clinical diagnosis" (Markel et al., 1962, p.

462).

A person's general attitude toward a speaker is determined by content and the congruency

of that content with voice set. Specific impressions of a speaker are determined by that speaker's

voice qualities, such as pitch or tempo. These impressions are independent of content and voice

set. Voice set and voice qualities are distinguishable aspects of the speech act. Dialect and accent

are aspects of voice set. In this study, the accent was the variable of interest.

Differential Reactions to Regional Dialects

In 1967 Markel, Eisler, and Reese investigated the effect of regional dialect on judgments

of personality from voice. The semantic differential procedure was used to obtain ratings of voices,

and analysis of variance for repeated measures was used to evaluate the significance of differences

between the ratings of the Buffalo and New York City speakers' voices. It was concluded that

regional dialect is a significant factor in judging personality from voice. These results confirmed

the hypothesis that varying pronunciations arouse "perceptual hypothesis" in decoders (Ainesfeld et

al., 1962). The results indicated that regional dialect elicits a stereotype that determines the

evaluation of the speaker on each of the three major dimensions (evaluative, activity, and potency)

of semantic space. Specifically, linguistically naive decoders were sensitive to a dialect variation of

their language, and this dialect stimulated a stereotypic response concerning the personality

characteristics of the speakers of that dialect. The differences found in the ratings between accents









were smaller on the evaluative and activity dimensions of the semantic differential than on the

potency dimension. The authors assumed the ratings on the evaluative dimension were modified by

the common content read by all speakers and that the ratings on the activity dimension were

modified by the leveling of paralinguistic qualities as a result of the common experimental

conditions in which the speakers were recorded. "The clear implications of the results is that dialect

(accent) must be seriously considered in any account of social interaction" (p. 35) and was the focus

of the current study. Many subsequent researchers (Craft, 1981; Delamere, 1986; DeMeis &

Turner, 1978; McGinnis & Smitherman, 1978) have chosen to compare accented individuals'

voices to the voices of relatively unaccented individuals who are standard speakers.

Different regional dialects (New Yorkers' voice sets) stimulated stereotypic responses in the

listeners toward both categories of voice based on all three dimensions of the semantic differential.

Different spoken languages (French/English) as well as differential pronunciation of the same

language (standard Canadian English/Jewish accented English) appears to stimulate a stereotypic

response in the listener, thus making a difference in judgements about the speakers' physical and

personality traits. Judgments based on voice qualities (of schizophrenics and nonschizophrenics) as

measured by the potency and activity dimensions of the semantic differential were distinguishable.

Differential Reactions to Content by Gender of Rater

Markel and Roblin (1965) conducted a study to determine if content and gender of rater

influenced judgements of speakers from voice. Three groups of equivalent judges heard passages

read by one person (a male graduate student), thus controlling for voice set and voice quality. Each

group heard a different passage. The passages represented three dimensions of connotative

meaning; i.e., one was pleasant about recreation, one was neutral about a vocation, and one was

unpleasant about death. The change in mean scores on the evaluative dimension from positive to

negative parallels the change in passage content from pleasant to unpleasant. Judgments of a

speaker's personality from voice was influenced by content. The content of what is heard does

influence judgments about speakers on the evaluative dimension of the semantic differential based

on voice.









There was also a significant difference found between male and female raters on the

evaluative dimension for all three passages. Market and Roblin (1965) noted that the largest

difference between male and females was found in their ratings of the pleasant recreation passage.

This passage was about a child swimming during the summertime. The authors hypothesized that

this reading by a mature male voice constituted an incongruent stimulus that created anxiety in the

listener/raters. They report that females responded more favorably to the male reading this passage

and hypothesized that the reason was to "get out of it (the anxiety provoking situation) by quickly

giving more favorable judgments" (p. 299). An alternative explanation is that the females were in

fact delighted that a man was speaking of a child swimming during the summertime, which would

also account for a more favorable response. Either way, gender differences between judges should

be considered in research design. In the studies presented thus far, the gender of the speakers was

controlled. Only male or female readers were used to study differential evaluations of speakers

based on their voices.

An unanticipated result of Markel and Roblin's (1965) study was that content and gender of

rater yielded significant differences on the evaluative dimension but had no effect on the potency or

activity dimensions. The adjective pairs representing the evaluative dimension indicate attitude

while the adjective pairs representing the potency and activity dimensions indicate specific

impressions of physical and personality attributes. The evaluative dimension has been found to

have some unique characteristics that set it apart. Primarily, the evaluative dimension has a high

correlation with standard attitude measures and is considered a reliable and valid measure of attitude

(Osgood, 1957, p. 195).

The content of the passage recorded for the current study was held constant and was

emotionally neutral. Although the primary focus of this study was concerned with the evaluative

dimension that reflects attitude, ratings on all three dimensions of the semantic differential were

collected and analyzed because of their importance in prior studies. Because gender differences

were found in Markel and Roblin's study, the analysis for this study includes gender as a

demographic variable.










Language Attitude Research Approaches

Williams (1974) defininition of attitude is "an internal state aroused by stimulation of some

type and which may mediate the organism's subsequent response. In briefer terms, an attitude is a

response disposition" (p. 21). The primary research approaches to language attitude are discussed

in this section.

Methodological Issues

During the 1960s, a technique was developed by Lambert at McGill University that

provides an indirect or projective measure of the attitudes of members of one social group toward

members of another social group. This measure of attitude involved the presentation of speech

samples by means of a matched guise technique. This technique utilized taped speakers who can

convincingly speak the "standard" version of a language as well as a "guise" (either some other

language or some accented version of the same language). These tapes of presumably different

speakers are then evaluated by listeners who attribute personality characteristics to each speaker on

scales made from Osgood's semantic differential. The advantage of this technique is that one

person represented two speakers and thus differential evaluations and perceptions of the two

speakers by a listener was clearly in the ear (i.e., perception) of that listener. The matched guise

technique in conjunction with the semantic differential served as a basic methodological tool to

elicit people's immediate reactions to tape recorded speakers of various accents, dialects, and

languages. The matched guise technique as developed by Lambert et al. (1967) in conjunction with

the semantic differential developed by Osgood et al. (1957) have been used in dozens of language

attitude studies in numerous countries.

In reviewing methodological issues in dialect perception, Giles and Bourhis (1976) cited

(Tajfel 1962; Lee, 1971; and Robinson 1972) as criticizing Lambert's traditional matched guise

technique on the grounds that listening to taped voices is too limited and artificial to be meaningful

as an evaluative measure. In view of these methodological issues, Giles, Baker, and Fielding

(1977) designed a study where a stimulus speaker was presented to listeners in face-to-face contact

rather than on tape. The listeners did not know that they would be asked to make evaluations of the









speaker, which eliminated listeners' possible prior evaluative set. The male speaker to be evaluated

in this study and a female cohort posed as psychologists and were introduced in a psychology class.

The male gave this class a brief lecture, a written task, and then left the room as they worked on the

written task. In his absence, the female explained that the man was being considered for a position

to give educational talks about psychology to adolescents. She gave them five minutes to write

down their impressions of the man and then handed them a traditional rating scale questionnaire and

also asked them to fill it out. This procedure was repeated with another psychology class where the

only change in the experimental condition was that the male speaker to be evaluated spoke with an

accent. The content of the brief lecture was heard only once.

Despite the face-to-face, real life context of this study, the subjects attitudinal responses on

the rating scales substantiated previous findings. Lambert's matched guise technique with or

without modification was strong enough to stand up to the criticism levied against it. Another

common criticism of the matched guise studies is that they are viewed as "experiments in a vacuum"

(Tajfel, 1972, p. 75). Too often this method has ended with the immediate attitudinal reaction to

some samples of speech but has not included or elaborated on the behavioral responses of subjects.

What are the behavioral consequences, if any, associated with language attitudes? Giles

and Bourhis (1976) designed another matched guise study in a naturalistic setting where listeners

had no evaluative set and their behavioral reactions to various accents were elicited. A short tape

recorded message was played through a theater loudspeaker asking different audiences to fill out a

short questionnaire concerning future programming. The subjects were different audiences

attending a theater production and the behavioral index adopted was whether they would fill out a

short questionnaire when the request was voiced with various accents. Not only did the audiences'

choice to cooperate depend on the accent, but also the audiences' responses depended on the

pronunciation within the same accent. "These behavioral results were in line with predictions

derived from previous socially-sterile, attitudinally- based, matched-guise studies" (e.g., Bourghis,

Giles, & Tajfel, 1973, p. 297).









Williams (1974) criticized prior research in language attitudes for focusing too much on

the stimulus being evaluated rather than on the psychological responses of the perceiver. He

considered the basic question in developing measures of attitude as "How can some externally

obtained response measure best reflect the preceding internal state of the organism?" The more

studies have attempted to focus upon some internal mediating state of the perceiver, the more they

are studies of linguistic attitudes. The more these studies have dealt with stimulus classification, the

less they contribute to a theory of linguistic attitude.

Osgood's Model

Williams (1974) discussed and contrasted two primary approaches to linguistic attitude

studies. The first was Osgood's model of "semantic differential" scaling, where a respondent is

asked to rate a stimulus between bipolar adjective pairs, which elicits a point on a judgment scale.

Two studies of teacher's evaluations of children's speech that utilized Osgood's model were

discussed. The adjective pairs selected in both studies were chosen as a result of discussions held

with a small group of teacher respondents in a pilot study. These respondents listened to stimulus

tapes of children's speech and were encouraged to discuss freely the speech characteristics. Then

respondents used the prototype scales in their evaluations of the language samples. These

responses were quantified and intercorrelated, and then a factor analysis was performed to

determine if fewer, more basic, and interpretable response diminensions could be identified. The

results were that two major clusters accounted for most of the differentiation in the children's

speech. One was "child's confidence eagerness" as indicated by unsure-confident, active-passive,

reticent-eager, hesitant-enthusiastic, and like-dislike talking. The second major cluster was a

judgmental dimension of "ethnicity-nonstandardness" as indicated by standard American-marked

ethnic style, white like-nonwhite like, low social status-high social status, and disadvantaged-

advantaged. These two major divisions of differentiation found in social dialect studies (ethnicity-

nonstandardness and confidence-eagerness), may have reflected differentiation of the child's

grammar.










In the results of earlier research, it was found that no matter how brief the respondents'

exposure to a stimulus, they still offered some type of evaluation in terms of Osgood's model.

Theoretically, the idea is that when a person is presented with a speech sample as a stimulus, it will

elicit first a stereotyped reaction, and this stereotyped reaction subsequently serves as an anchor

point for their evaluation of the characterisitcs of a particular person who would fit into the category

of the stereotype. Therefore, the evaluations of a particular child were more related to an

individual's stereotype of children from that group than an evaluation of that particular child.

Latitude of Attitude Model

C.W. Sherif, M. Sherif, and Nebergall (1965) criticized Osgood's model of language

attitude study. They believed a single point could not adequately describe a person's attitude

because an individual usually has a range or latitude of a given position. The concept of a range

within which a judgment may be made was called the "latitude of attitude" concept. If these

latitudes of acceptance are reflective of stereotypes, then they are perhaps a more comprehensive

operational definition of the stereotype than the single point. The latitude of acceptance may mark

the ranges of acceptability within which a respondent judges any particular individual of that type.

The latitude of rejection marks the ranges of unacceptability within which a respondent judges any

particular individual. The latitude of noncommitment marks the middle ground where the

respondent was unable to take a position one way or the other. There seems to be considerable face

validity on the concepts of latitude of acceptance, rejection, and noncommittal. It appears that the

best estimate position is very much the same as the mean of the latitude of acceptance. The best

estimate position in the latitude scales is very much the same as is reflected in the traditional check-

mark in semantic differential scaling of attitudes lending even more credibility to the semantic

differential technique. A limitation and control in the studies discussed by Williams (1974) is the

variety of speech contexts that are not represented (e.g., informal speech, particularly emotional

speech, and so on).









Ethnic Group Considerations

The population of the United States of America is rapidly changing. There are more

immigrants, refugees, and internationals living in America than at any previous time in history. A

brief history and rationale for the ethnic groups selected for inclusion in this study are presented.

Hispanic Americans

Hispanic "replaces terms used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census or others that denotes

ethnicity ('Spanish origin'), language skill ('Spanish speaking'), family name ('Spanish surname'),

or ancestry ('Spanish American')" (Ruiz, 1981, p. 187). Seldom has the United States absorbed

so many immigrants who speak the same first language, that is, Spanish. These Spanish speaking

immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvadore, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Venezuela, and

the rest of the Central and South America together with Puerto Ricans are called Hispanic. In the

near future Hispanic Americans will constitute the largest American minority group.

From a counselor's perspective, it would be important to consider the incredible diversity

within the Hispanic population in America. It would also be important to recognize the diversity

existing within any specific Hispanic group, such as the Cuban-American population. Group-

specific diversity among Cuban Americans is partially a result of the influence of varied historical

conditions. In this study, Cuban Americans serve as Spanish accented speakers.

Stoddard (1973) found that the amount of stress on language as an identity factor varied

from one generation to another, but that some degree of language as identity symbol was present.

A person who knows only Spanish is viewed as having a "language disability" according to the

1970 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Cuban Americans

No language attitude studies were found in relation to Cuban Americans, yet the majority of

Cuban immigrants throughout the history of U.S. immigration spoke only Spanish upon arrival in

the United States and faced the issues of language and culture that all immigrants face. However

they differed from other immigrant groups, in that the first wave of Cuban immigrants from 1960 to

1979 believed that they would return to Cuba when Castro was defeated (Hallman & Campbell,









1983). This belief influenced the Cuban exiles, who tended to create a strong Cuban community

where they remained "proud of their heritage, and actively struggled to keep their identity" (Greco

& McDavis, 1978). Within this first wave of Cuban immigrants are those who came directly to the

United States and those who came to the United States after exile in some other country first.

Twenty years of exile and a diminishing hope of returning to Cuba caused many of the first wave of

Cubans to want to become American citizens.

The post-1980 wave of Cuban refugees constitutes a somewhat different group of Cubans.

In this group, the children and adolescents have grown up in post-revolutionary Cuba and attended

schools where the communist ideology denounces the American political system (Szapocznick,

1980a). These children of Castro's Cuba speak a different Spanish that has no terms for class

distinction and is often considered less genteel by Cuban-Americans from the first wave (Hallman &

Campbell, 1983). These children come with adults who have experienced pre- and post-Castro

Cuba. Sometimes the adults are socio-political dissidents who have planned secretly for years to

leave Cuba. They had not told their children of their plans in order to protect them. When the time

came to leave, the children may have felt uprooted and resentful. The intrafamilial conflict can be

strong in such cases (Arredondo-Dowd, 1980).

This post-1980 wave basically included two groups of adults. The socio-political

dissidents and a socially marginal group. Socio-political dissidents tend to be a psychologically

resilient group in that they maintain a kind of mental integrity that they carry with them to their new

country. The socio-political dissidents in the second wave were by far the larger of the two groups

but nevertheless have suffered from a stigma of criminality that is associated with the Mariel

Boatlift. There was considerable negative response in Florida concerning the arrival of this second

wave of Cubans (Hallman & Campbell, 1983).

Mexican American Language Attitude Studies

The language attitude studies pertaining to Hispanic Americans have been conducted

primarily with Mexican Americans, the largest ethnic group within the Hispanic population in the

United States. Research regarding Anglo and Mexican Americans language attitudes is included in









this review of literature, although the history, culture, educational background, and economics of

Cuban Americans and Mexican Americans is very different. The reason for reviewing Mexican

American language studies is to look at the Spanish language and Spanish accent attitude studies

that have been done and how they were done.

The purpose of Cohen's (1974) study concerning Mexican-Americans evaluative judgments

about language varieties was to investigate the formation of the language attitudes in immigrant

group with limited formal education and linguistic sophistication. Cohen used the term, language

variety in place of dialect. In this study, a bilingual interviewer, asked immigrant parents about their

language attitudes. The inherent weakness in this direct approach is that the immigrant parents may

not want to talk to the investigator or they may not be able to put their attitudes into words. For

example, immigrant parents were asked who they think speaks the "best" Spanish and where they

live generally in the world and also where they live locally. They were asked who speaks the

"best" English and where they live.

The data analysis included a frequency count of responses to six evaluative judgments

about Spanish and English. Then, judgments about where the best Spanish and English are spoken

were crosstabulated with demographic variables (gender, SES, language profeciency, language use,

and so on) using the SPSS Fastabs program. Gamma was used instead of chi-square, because

gamma provides a measure of statistical significance even if one or more cells in the contingency

table has fewer than five cases. Chi -square is meaningless in such instances.

Inability to respond was most prevalent in the following categories of parents: females,

lower SES, and parents with less proficiency in Spanish and English. Males were more likely to

respond. Perhaps a less direct method of information gathering would be more effective and

appropriate. The semantic differential technique is less direct and is perhaps easier to respond to in

that it does not require expression, it simply requires projection.

The purpose in another study was to determine the evaluative reactions of Mexican

American and Anglo high school students toward speakers of standard English and standard

Spanish (Carranza & Ryan,1977). Spanish was rated higher in the home context by Anglos and









Mexican Americans while English was generally rated higher in the school. The favorable reactions

of Anglos toward Spanish speakers in the home context may be influenced by the fact that the

Anglo subjects were all attending Spanish classes in school, which possibly gave them an increased

respect for the perpetuation of a nonEnglish native language. It could also indicate healthy

relationships between different ethnic groups. This research also establishes the appropriateness of

the language variety used by the speaker for a particular situation.

Mexican Americans are the largest bilingual minority in the United States. Parsons (1966)

concluded in his study on school bias toward Mexican Americans in an agricultural town in the

Southwest that, "the school teachers, all Anglo and for the most part indigenous to the area,

appeared unanimous in sharing the stereotype of Mexican Americans being inferior in capacity as

well as performance" (p. 379). These Mexican children even came to share this view of themselves

(introjected prejudice) and viewed Anglo children as smarter. These findings are similar to the

findings of Lambert et al. (1960) regarding the French Canadian university students who evaluated

French speakers more negatively than English speakers on every trait. In an attitudinal investigation

that compared foreign-bomrn Mexican Americans and native-born Mexican Americans, the native-

born viewed themselves as being significantly more emotional, unscientific, authoritarian,

materialistic, old-fashioned, poor, being of a lower social class, uneducated, mistrusted, proud,

lazy, indifferent, and unambitious. These negative self-views would seem to reflect the introjected

prejudice encountered by Mexican Americans in the United States.

In a very interesting study at a Chicago Catholic high school, Mexican-American and

Anglo-American Catholic high school students studying Spanish in Chicago served as subjects.

Two simple, emotionally neutral narrative paragraphs were read and recorded in Spanish and

English. These paragraphs concerned the context where language is spoken and which language is

spoken in that context. The contexts were a mother preparing breakfast at home and a teacher giving

a history lesson at school. Each story contained approximately 140 words, was about two minutes

in length, and was recorded with 16 different speakers. In classrooms, the subjects were told that

they were participating in a study of personality perception in which they were to rate the









personalities of a number of speakers. They were asked to rate each speaker on the basis of that

speaker's voice. Fifteen items from the semantic differential were used for rating each of thel6

speakers. Results showed that context is an important consideration in evaluation of speech.

Scores were analyzed by a four-way analysis of variance that included [group (Anglo or

Mexican American) by scale type (adjective pairs) by context (home or school) by language

(Spanish or English) or a 2 X 4 X 2 X 2 design]. Main effects were significant for language and

for scale type and for interactions for context by language and scale type by language. English was

rated higher overall, Spanish was rated higher in the home--the difference in favor of English was

greater for status scales than for solidarity scales. Factor analysis was utilized to determine the

dimensions underlying the ratings given for the 15 adjective scales by the subjects to see if the two

scales designated status and solidarity actually represented separate factors. The factor analysis was

also utilized to make intercorrelations among the 15 adjective pairs. The correlations were computed

using the total ratings given by subjects for each set of four speakers on each scale. The resulting

15 x 15 correlation matrix was subjected to a principle factor analysis using eigenvalues equal to .90

as a criterion for extraction. The extracted factors were then rotated according to the varimax

principle. In fact, three factors did underlie the scales employed in this study (status, solidarity, and

activity/potency).

Duncan's multiple range test was employed using the 12 means for the factor by context by

language cells. In the school, English was rated more positively on all three factors. In the home,

English was rated more positively on the status factor and less positively on the solidarity and

activity/potency factor. Context is an important consideration in evaluation of speech. The Duncan

test was also done to indicate the group by factor by language interaction. English was rated higher

on the status factor with the difference being even greater for Mexican-Americans. On the

activity/potency factor, both groups rated Spanish more positively than English, with the difference

being greater for Anglos.

Studies of college student's evaluative reactions to accented speech (Anisfeld et al, 1962;

Craft, 1981; Delamere, 1986; Lambert et al., 1960; Markel, Eisler, & Reese, 1967; Markel et al.,









1964) and studies of teacher's perceptions of culturally different students based on speech (DeMeis

& Turner, 1978; McGinnis & Smitherman, 1978) showed that both college students and school

teachers make differential judgments about people based on their speech. Williams (1971) writes

that teachers generally make serious judgments about a child's ability and intelligence on factors

such as speech and appearance. These studies have shown that the listeners' attitudes toward

accented English reflect listeners' biases and affect the listeners' perceptions of the speakers.

No studies were found to determine if counselors make biased evaluations of clients based

on accent. Since spoken language is the medium of counseling in the United States, it is important

to determine if counselors in the United States respond with bias to accented English.

Asians in America and Asian-Americans

"Unknown to the American public, Asians in America have suffered from some of the most

inhumane treatment ever accorded any immigrant group" (Sue, 1981, p. 118). In the mid-1800s,

there was systematic harassment of the Chinese resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,

which denied the Chinese their rights of U.S. citizenship. There are Japanese Americans who

remember 1942 as the year of their own detainment in concentration camps in America. There is a

growing suspicion among Asian Americans like Lucie Cheng, director of the Asian Studies

Department at UCLA, that university administrators are plotting to revise admission policies to curb

the growing Asian student enrollments (Doemer, 1985).

There are three broad categories of people of Asian descent living and working in the

United States. There are the Asians who come temporarily with diplomatic, visitor, worker, and

student visas. These Asians are considered internationals who will return after they have

accomplished what they came to do. There are other Asians who have come as political refugees

after 1948 from Korea and most recently from Viet Nam, Laos, and Kampuchea. Some of these

new refugees have memories of torture and death at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. The largest

group of Asians are immigrants. Prior to 1965, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services

heavily favored European immigration. The Immigration Act of 1965 modified the system of

immigration by allowing up to 20,000 immigrants from any one country. "Asians have become,









just within the past couple of years, the fastest expanding ethnic minority, as measured through

births and legal immigration. Hispanics are probably still ahead if undocumented entries are

counted" (Doemer, 1985, p. 44). From 1910 to 1980, Japanese Americans were the largest Asian

subgroup but are now the third largest after Pilipino and Chinese Americans. The largest groups of

Asian immigrants are currently coming from the Philippines, Korea, China, and India, respectively.

These immigrants are the largest group of educated, middle class immigrants this country has ever

had.

From a counselor's perspective, it is important to consider the incredible diversity within

the Asian population in America. Like all ethnic minorities in America, the adjustment of Asian

Americans is influenced by the group's history in America and their cultural history that predates

arrival in America.

The use of accented English by Asian Americans may interfere with the counseling

interaction by stimulating the bias of the counselor (Shuy, 1983). Many researchers have identified

language as an important client variable to attend to when counseling Asian Americans (Chen, 1979;

D.W. Sue, 1981; D.W. Sue & S. Sue, 1972; S. Sue & Morishima, 1982). Asian Americans who

speak little or no English or who speak with a heavy accent may be misunderstood, possibly

resulting in their being perceived as uncooperative, sullen, and negative (D.W. Sue & S. Sue,

1972).

In an interesting two-part, Canadian study of perception and evaluation of job candidates

with four different ethnic accents, Kalin, Rayko and Love (1980) found a strong ethnicity by job

status interaction. The first part of this study was to get comprehensibility ratings for and

identification of the accented speakers. British-accented speakers were rated more comprehensible

than German-accented speakers, who were rated more comprehensible than South Asian-accented

speakers, who were rated better than West Indian-accented speakers. Percentage of correct

identifications of the ethnicity of speaker followed from British through West Indian. For the

highest status job, British accented candidates were rated most suitable. For the lowest status jobs,

West Indian accented candidates were rated as most suitable. It is interesting to note that the two









groups who speak English as their native language (British and West Indians) were ranked highest

and lowest on comprehensibility, were ranked most to least often identified correctly, and were

ranked highest and lowest on suitability for a high status job. These results were explained in terms

of prejudice toward the ethnic groups represented by the accented speakers. This was the only

accent study found that included an Asian accent.

The majority of the counseling studies of Asian Americans have been conducted in and

used samples from Hawaii and California and have focused on Chinese or Japanese Americans.

Leong (1986) recommends that studies regarding Asian Americans be conducted in geographically

different regions because results may vary by region.

Chinese Americans

Because of political unrest and overpopulation, the Chinese who came to the United States

settled primarily on the West Coast, and supplied cheap labor for the California goldrush and the

building of the transcontinental railroad. They were the first Asian immigrants to come to the

United States in large numbers. The Chinese became the target of frustration in a tight job market

once the railroad was completed. White working men and organized labor viewed them as an

economic threat and the rally against them culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which

disallowed the Chinese their rights to U.S. citizenship. Large scale massacres of the Chinses in Los

Angeles in 1851 and Rock Springs, Wyoming in 1885 are examples of the mob violence that

erupted against the Chinese (Sue, 1981). The Chinese Exclusion Act was in effect for 61 years. It

was repealed in 1943 when America turned its attention and active discrimination to the Japanese.

Sue and Kirk (1972) found that Chinese Americans have a lower tolerance for ambiguity

than their Caucasian counterparts and that they prefer structured situations and practical immediate

solutions to problems. Yuen and Tinsley (1981) in a study of counseling expectations found that

Chinese students expected more directness, empathy, nurturance and expertise on the part of

counselors than did Caucasian students. Their perception of lack of expertness in counselors seems

likely to be tied to their expectations of what would make an expert. An expert to a Chinese










American might be perceived as an authority figure who would give specific advice and information

to help solve the problem.

Summary

Within the counseling research literature, there were some studies regarding client attitudes

and biases toward counselor race and gender, a few studies regarding counselor attitudes and biases

in relation to client's gender, but no studies were found concerning counselors' stereotypes or

biases toward ethnically different clients. Yet, within the cross-cultural counseling literature, the

importance of counselor self-awareness as it relates to culture, the detrimental effects counselors'

stereotypic attitudes have on culturally different clients, and the importance of counselors making

their unconscious stereotypes and biases conscious, were emphasized. These emphases point to the

gap between the theories espoused in the cross-cultural counseling literature and the related

research.

Although spoken language is the primary medium for counseling, the field of counseling

has, thus far, reaped very few of the possible benefits from the language attitudes studies that have

more than a half-century history in the field of sociolinguistics. Language attitude research has

shown repeatedly that spoken language arouses in the listener a generalized attitudinal reaction to

speakers (whether of a different language, an accented language, a regional dialect, or the standard

spoken language). In language attitude studies using various research designs, general agreement

among the listeners in their perceptions and evaluations of speakers was found, which implies that

listeners respond in a stereotyped way to voice. If naive listeners (represented by students and

teachers in prior studies) respond in stereotyped ways to voice, it is important to learn specifically

whether counselors trained in nonjudgmental listening would also respond in stereotypic ways to

voice.

The need for this study is related to the ongoing dynamic changes of the U.S. population.

Because spoken English is the primary medium for counseling in the United States, because so

many immigrants, internationals, and refugees speak with accents, because little is known about







39


counselors' nonjudgmental listening as it relates to accented speakers, it is critical to know if

counselors evaluate accented persons differently.














CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate native-born American counselor trainees

ratings on semantic differential scales as a function of their reactions to ethnic accented speech and

their reactions to written ethnic referents. The purpose also was to compare counselor trainees

ratings to ethnic accented speech with their ratings of written ethnic referents. The counselor

trainees' reactions to voice recordings of accented English speakers may reflect their attitudes.

Language attitudes are particularly important in multicultural counseling because spoken language is

the primary medium of communication in counseling in the United States. The counselor trainees'

reactions to written situations that vary only in regard to the specific ethnic group referent is another

approach to assessing their attitudes toward ethnicity.

Accents are often the outward, obvious identifier of one's ethnic group in the United States.

It has been hypothesized that one's deeply ingrained feelings or evaluative thoughts toward a

particular group are projected onto the audible symbol of that group, their accent. Kalin, Rayko,

and Love (1980) would agree with Lambert (1967) who argued that responses to speech cues

associated with ethnicity (accents) are more likely to reveal a listener's private reactions to ethnic

groups than are direct attitude questionnaires. Because there are ever increasing numbers of

immigrants and internationals in the United States who speak with various accents, it would be

helpful to know if counselors evaluate people differently based on their accents. If counselors in

training did make differential evaluations of people based on their accent, then making their

differential evaluations conscious would permit counselors to confront their cultural biases and in

turn be more cross-culturally sensitive and effective. Awareness of bias is not sufficient to make a

cross-culturally effective counselor, but it is a critical first step.









The remainder of this chapter is divided into five sections: (a) hypotheses, (b) population

and sample, (c) semantic differential scales, (d) materials and procedures, and (e) research design

and statistical analyses.

Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to investigate native-born American counselor trainees'

ratings on the semantic differential scales as a function of their reactions to ethnic accented speech

and their reactions to written ethnic referents. The purpose also was to compare counselor trainees'

ratings tto ethnic accented speech with their ratings of the written ethnic referent. The hypotheses in

this study are expressed in the null form.

1. No difference will exist among the subjects' ratings of taped voices employing

network English, Spanish-accented English, and Chinese-accented English on the

three primary dimensions (evaluative, activity, and potency) of the semantic

differential scales.

2. No difference will exist among subjects' ratings of written ethnic referents; new

client, new Cuban client, and new Chinese client on the three primary dimensions

of the semantic differential scales.

3. No difference will exist among subjects' ratings of each ethnic accent and the

corresponding written ethnic referent. (Ratings on the three dimensions of the

semantic differential scales for each of the three accent groups were compared to

ratings on the corresponding written ethnic referents representing U.S.-bom,

Cuban-born, and Chinese-bomrn.)

All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance.

Population and Sample

The subjects for this study consisted of counselor education graduate students who were

currently studying and training to become counselors in one of three counselor education programs

in the State University System of Florida. These students had completed at least one semester of the

beginning counseling curriculum, which includes the theory and practice of active listening skills









30 were used in the data collection. The researcher sought permission from the graduate counseling

faculty to administer this study during or after regularly scheduled classes. From these intact

classes, those counselor trainees who themselves and whose parents were born in the United States

and who spoke English as their first language were included in the subject pool for the purpose of

data analysis. Counselor trainees who did not meet these criteria were eliminated from the subject

pool. Participation in this study was voluntary and students were given the opportunity to refuse to

participate.

Twenty-five of the 147 participants did not meet the criteria for subject inclusion, which

was operationally defined by answering true to items 163, 164, 165, and 166 in the rating booklet.

see Appendix B). The participants and their parents had to be born in the United States and speak

English as their first language to be included as subjects. Of the 122 participants who met the

criteria, there were 94 females and 28 males; there were 113 whites, 7 blacks, 1 Asian American,

and 1 Hispanic; there were 27 students who had been in the counseling program for one semester,

35 for two or three semesters, and 60 for four or more semesters; and there were 33 students from

the University of Central Florida, 42 from the University of Florida, and 47 from the University of

North Florida.

The Semantic Differential Scales

The semantic differential method developed by Osgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum (1957) is

an objective measure of the meaning of concepts. The semantic differential is not one specific test

but, rather, a general technique of measurement. Osgood et al. (1957) found that a large portion of

all meaning was accounted for by three cognitive dimensions: evaluative (e.g., good/bad), potency

(e.g., strong/weak), and activity (e.g., relaxed/Aense). In this study, the classic sociolinguistic

design (Lambert et al., 1960 & Anisfeld et al., 1962) was followed and, for the purpose of

comparison, the mean scores for the evaluative, activity, and potency dimensions were calculated

for each ethnic accented group and for each ethnic version of the written situation.

The semantic differential scales for voice were constructed according to Osgood's original

method (Osgood et al., 1957). The semantic differential scales measured the extent to which









counselor trainees attributed the dimensions of meaning to the concept of ethnicity as represented by

ethnic accented speech and written ethnic labels. Pairs of polar adjectives representing each of the

three primary dimensions of meaning were selected and arranged at opposite ends of a continuum,

for example,

bad _; _; _; _; _; good

(-2) (-1) (0) (+1) (+2)

with (-2) being quite bad, (-1) being slightly bad, (0) being neither good nor bad, (+1) being

slightly good, and (+2) being quite good. In this study, a five-point scale was used and each item

contributed from -2 to +2 points on a total score. Counselor trainees chose where on the five-point

continuum between adjective pairs each accented voice and each written ethnic label fell.

Heise (in Kerlinger, 1973) found that three adjective pairs per dimension are sufficient and

the addition of more adjective pairs does not significantly increase the reliability; therefore, three

adjective pairs from each of the three primary dimensions were selected (see Table 1) for the

semantic differential scale. The original research results of Osgood et al. (1957) served as the base

for selection.

The adjective pairs with the highest factor loadings for each dimension from the original

research by Osgood et al. (1957, p.45) are presented in Table 2. The two adjective pairs with the

highest factor loadings (good/bad and nice/awful) representing the evaluative dimension were

retained for use in this study. Pleasant/unpleasant was selected as the third adjective pair to

represent the evaluative dimension because, in a cross-linguistic study involving subjects' ratings

of voice on the semantic differential, Miron (1961) found pleasant/unpleasant had the highest factor

loading (.89) among the adjective pairs representing the evaluative dimension. The evaluative

dimension cf the semantic differential correlates highly with established attitude measures (Mueller,

1986).

The potency dimension was represented by strong/weak and hard/ soft from the original

study and by powerful/powerless from Miron's (1961) study. The heavy/light item in the study by









The potency dimension was represented by strong/weak and hard/ soft from the original

study and by powerful/powerless from Miron's (1961) study. The heavy/light item in the study by

Osgood et al. (1957) was replaced by the powerful/powerless item in Miron's (1961) study that

involved subjects' responses to voice and that had a factor loading of .90.

For the same reason,(i.e., Miron's voice study), quiet/loud was selected to represent the

activity dimension because of its appropriateness for rating voice. According to Osgood et al.

(1957, p. 51) "in later research," agitated/calm replaced heavy/light in the position of one of the top

three items representing the activity dimension. Active/passive had a factor loading of .80 in

Miron's study and was the only item retained from the top three adjective pairs in Osgood's original

study. The activity dimension of the semantic differential scale in this study is therefore represented

by active/passive, quiet/loud, and calm/agitated. Following the classic sociolinguistic design, the

three adjective pairs selected to represent each of the three dimensions served as the base for

comparing ratings among ethnic accented voices. Although these nine adjective pairs serve the

purpose of the study, seven additional items for the voice scales were selected for special

consideration beyond the limits of the study.

The same three adjective pairs selected to represent each of the three dimensions for rating

voice served as the rating scale for measuring the dimensions on the written ethnic referents of the

counselor situation form. The powerful/powerless adjective pair representing the potency

dimension selected as appropriate to rating voice (Miron, 1961) was replaced by

capable/incapable,which is more appropriate for rating the written form with ethnic labels (White &

Sedlacek, 1987). Any group of three adjective pairs with sufficiently high factor loadings

representing a dimension is a valid measure of that dimension, therefore, these scales made a

comparison possible between ratings of ethnic accented voice and written ethnic referents (Heise in

Kirlinger, 1973). In following White and Sedlacek's (1987) model, 10 adjective pairs from the

evaluative dimension of the semantic differential were selected and added to the nine adjective pairs

representing the dimensions, making a total of nineteen adjective pairs for the semantic differential

scales for rating the written counselor situation form (see Appendix A). Although these 10 items








Table 1

Adjective Pairs Selected from Each Dimension for Inclusion on the Semantic Differential Scales for
Accented Voice and for Written Ethnic Labels


Evaluative Potency Activity


good-bad strong-weak active-passive

nice-awful hard-soft quiet-loud

pleasant-unpleasant powerful-powerless (v)* calm-agitated

capable-uncapable (w)*
* indicates powerful-powerless was used for voice (v) ratings and was replaced by capable-
incapable for ratings on the counselor situation form with written ethnic referents (w).


Table 2

Factor Loadings from Osgood. Succi. and Tanenbaum's Original Research


Evaluative Potency Activity


good-bad* .88 strong-weak* .62 fast-slow .70

nice-awful* .87 large-small .62 active-passive* .59

beautiful-ugly .86 heavy-light .62 sharp-dull .52

fragrant-foul .84 hard-soft* .55

sweet-sour .83

pleasant-unpleasant* .82

* adjective pair selected for the semantic differential scales
Note. (From The Mesurement of Meaning (4th ed., p. 45) by C.E. Osgood, G.J. Suci, and
P.H. Tannenbaum, 1978, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.








did not enter into the purposes of the study, they were selected from items used in Sedlacek and

Brook's (1971) ethnic attitude research, which utilized the semantic differential and was based on

the theory of racial bias.

Materials and Procedures

One of the purposes of this study was to investigate the effect of speaker accent on

judgments of voice by counselor trainees. Adult language learners, whether they are refugees,

immigrants or internationals, often find it impossible to speak without the accent of their native

language. Interest in studying listeners' attitudes toward these accented speakers necessitated the

development of a research technique that would provide a measure of the attitudes of one group

toward members of another group. Lambert (1967) developed a measure of attitude involving

subjects in the rating of taped speech samples. Anisfeld et al., (1962) developed a technique where

several speakers representing an accent group and several speakers representing the standard

speaking group were selected for taping. Speakers gender, age, and content spoken were held

constant. These taped speech samples were played in a random order for evaluation by listeners

who attributed characteristics to each speaker on bipolar adjective pairs of the semantic differential.

Numerous researchers (Craft, 1981; Delamere, 1986; DeMeis & Turner, 1978; Markel,

Eisler, & Reese,1967; and McGinnis & Smitherman, 1978) have used several speakers to represent

one accent group while holding constant as many of the individual variables of voice as possible.

This approach has been widely used in the field of sociolinguistic and was used in this study

because it provided an indirect, projective measure of the attitudes of one group (native-born

American counselor trainees) toward members of other ethnic groups (Chinese and Spanish

accented speakers). The use of three speakers to represent each accent group was employed to

strengthen the measure of accent versus some peculiarity of an individual voice.

Accents Selected

Female speakers were selected for recording because more females than males seek

counseling (Chesler, 1972). The accents of interest were Spanish and Chinese. These accented










speakers learned either Spanish or Chinese as their first language and could do little to alter their

accented spoken English, because they learned English as a foreign language.

A Spanish accent was selected because of the tremendous growth of the Hispanic

population in the United States and because it is projected that by the year 2000 Hispanics will be

the single largest minority in the United States. Cuban-American speakers were selected because

they are the largest group of Hispanics in the state of Florida where this study was conducted.

Because of the tremendous growth in immigration from Asia, it was important to include an

Asian accent. Chinese accented speakers were selected because the Chinese currently represent the

largest Asian immigrant group in America as well as the largest international student population

group studying in the United States.

The standard American English speakers were selected from the Broadcasting Department

in the College of Journalism because as future newscasters they are encouraged and trained to speak

a general American English. Ratings of these speakers served as the baseline ratings from which to

compare the Chinese and Spanish accented speakers.

The Speakers for the Recordings

Voice samples for this study were obtained from nine female speakers who were taped

reading the same passage. All nine speakers resided in the state of Florida at the time of this study.

Three of these speakers were born in Cuba and immigrated to the United States at or after the age of

11. Three of these speakers were born in the Republic of China, Taiwan, and are temporarily in the

United States with student visa status. Three of these speakers were born in the United States and

were studying broadcast journalism and working as television newscasters at the university station,

which required them to use network English. The speakers ranged in age from 21 to 36 years old.

To study language attitudes toward accented speakers who could not easily alter their

accented speech, three samples of speech were obtained from each of the three accent groups.

These speech samples were verified as authentic and typical by a linguist. The speakers read an

identical passage, thus holding the content constant. As in prior studies, it was assumed that









paralinguistic differences would be distributed across speakers. The number of speech disruptions

was also held constant, thus making accent the primary variable of the speech samples.

Preparation of the Material for Auditory Presentation

Tape recordings of the speakers were made in quiet rooms with a General Electric Mini

Cassette Recorder with a built-in microphone. Each speaker was asked to read the passage silently,

to read it once aloud for practice, and to read it three more times. Three recordings were made of

the reading by each speaker.

Each set of three readings was evaluated for speech disruptions (Mahl, 1961, p. 93) by a

speech specialist. One recording of each speaker (Chinese, Hispanic, and network) was selected to

match the others in terms of total number of speech disruptions for a total of nine recordings.

Speech disruption was matched and thus held constant. The content of the passage read was also

held constant.

The taped voices to be rated were in order such that no one type of accent was heard

consecutively. The order of the voices was counterbalanced such that each accented voice both

preceded as well as followed at least once every other accented voice. For example, if C=Chinese,

H=Hispanic, and N=Network, then the order was N for practice and then C,H,N,C,N,H,C,H,N

for the nine ratings. The subjects rated all nine tapes without interruption.

The nine selected recordings of each speaker were rerecorded on a MCS Series #2236 Dual

Stereo Cassette Deck with Dolby sound. Fifteen second intervals of silence were left between each

speaker. The volume was adjusted so that all nine speakers were rerecorded at the same sound

level. This final tape of the nine speakers was played for each participating counselor education

class on a portable General Electric model #3-5631 A dual cassette, stereo tape recorder.

The Passage Chosen for Recording

The nine female readers for this study were taped reading the same passage. The passage,

"The Trip" (see Appendix C), was written by phonetician C. K. Thomas and was selected because

it was written for the purpose of eliciting variation in the pronunciation of American English. This










passage was also selected because it has been used in a prior research study investigating the effects

of regional dialect on judgments of personality from voice (Markel, 1967).

The passage read was presented to the reader-speakers in common orthography. To control

pauses and intonation patterns, each line in the printed copy of the passage read by the speaker

ended either with a punctuation mark or was grammatically structured such that a pause was

required.

Counselors are trained to listen beyond the content of clients' speech for the underlying

feelings that their clients are experiencing (Egan, 1975). As a means of control and of helping the

counselor trainees focus on the speakers' voices rather than the underlying feelings of these

speakers, an emotionally neutral reading was selected. "The Trip" is a descriptive story about a

vacation in Oregon and is emotionally neutral.

The Counselor Situation Form

The counselor situation form was developed for the purpose of investigating counselor

trainees' ratings on the semantic differential as a function of their reactions to written ethnic

referents. The counselor situation form was modeled after the Situation Attitude Scale (SAS)

developed by Sedlacek and Brooks (1971) to assess ethnic attitudes and biases. Subjects' ratings

on the SAS are made in response to 10 written social situations, each of which is followed by 10

adjective pairs from the evaluative dimension of the semantic differential for a total of 100 items.

The 10 situations described remain identical on all forms of the SAS. Only the ethnic label varies on

the different forms of the SAS. Only one form of the SAS is given to any one subject to limit the

potential bias due to response set. In other words, half the subjects get the neutral SAS and their

scores are compared to the other half of the subjects who received an SAS form with an ethnic

referent.

The counselor situation form models Sedlacek and Brook's (1971) work and was created

to assess ethnic attitudes and biases as a function of counselor trainees' responses to one written

situation on a semantic differential scale. The form was evaluated by three professional counselors

to confirm validity of the situation concerned and the format followed. A pertinent situation for









counselors is that of meeting a client for the first time. This situation was chosen for the counselor

situation form, i.e., "a new client has just come into your office for counseling" (see appendix B).

The three versions of the counselor situation form varied only by ethnic referent i.e., a new client, a

new Chinese client, or a new Cuban client has just come into your office for counseling.

The direction (positive to negative) or (negative to positive) of the adjective pairs in both

the voice and written semantic differential scales was altered randomly in the subjects' response

booklets. The random directionality of the adjective pairs was to prevent subjects' systematic

response patterns.

Rating Booklets

Rating booklets contained four sections: first, "The Trip"; second, a set of 10 identical

rating sheets for voice; third, the demographic section; and fourth, the rating sheet for one of the

three versions of the counselor situation form (see appendix C). The computer answer sheets were

the traditional bubble sheets with five spaces labeled A, B, C, D, and E beside each number. These

answer sheets were chosen over the kind with 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 beside each number since the

numbers might have inadvertently influenced the responses of the subjects. Computer answer

sheets were used because they are familiar to the subjects and because they are easy and efficient for

the purpose of creating a data set that could immediately be read and programmed for analysis with

a computer.

The rating booklet contained four parts; the passage, the rating scales for voice, the

demographics, and the rating scale for the counselor situation form. "The Trip" was on the front

page of the rating booklet. The second section contained one practice page for rating the sample

voice and then nine identical pages, a page for each voice to be rated. The adjective pair lists on

each of these pages were in random order. The direction (positive to negative or negative to

positive) of the adjective pairs on each list was mixed.

The demographic section contained 12 items including the subject's gender, race, age,

place of birth, the parents' place of birth, the parents' first language, subject's first language, other

languages subject speaks, travel outside of the country, length of time out of the country, school









currently attended, and length of time in the counseling program. The subject inclusion criteria

were contained within the demographics. If participants and their parents were born in the United

States of America and spoke English as their first language, they were included as subjects.

Finally, one of the three versions of the counselor situation form was included in each of the

subjects' rating booklets. The booklets were stacked in a 1,2, 3 order according to the three

versions of the counselor situation form. Rating booklets were handed out from the top of the

stack, which guaranteed a near equal number of participants for each version.

After each administration of the study, the researcher would sort through the counselor

trainees rating booklets to find who met the subject inclusion criteria and then which version of the

counselor situation form these subjects received. If more subjects were represented on one version

of the counselor situation form than another, the imbalance would be adjusted by counterbalanacing

the distribution of rating booklets in the next administration of the study. As a result of this

procedure, 42 subjects received the Chinese client form, 40 received the Cuban client form and 40

received the new client form.

Presentation of the Materials

Rating booklets, computer answer sheets, and #2 pencils were distributed to subjects after

the professors of each class introduced the researcher to class members. Subjects were asked to

read "The Trip" on the front page of their rating booklet in order to become familiar with its content.

They were asked to look up and walt for further instructions when they had finished reading. The

subjects were then instructed by the examiner (researcher) to:


Take your green computer answer sheet and turn it to side two. Do not write in the
name blanks since your participation in this study is both voluntary and
anonymous. Please darken the circles under your birth date, sex, and subject
participation number. When you are finished turn your answer sheet over to side
one and look up at me.
When all subjects were finished, the following instructions were read aloud:

The purpose of this study is to find out what impressions you make of people
based on their voice. You will listen to a tape of nine speakers who will be reading
exactly the same passage, the passage you just read, "The Trip". The rating scales
for each speaker will be exactly the same. You will be asked to wait until you have
an impression of the speaker before making your ratings. You need not wait until








the speaker has completed the passage to begin making your ratings. There will be
15 seconds after each speaker in which to complete your rating of that speaker. If
that is not enough time then raise your hand and I will extend the time by pressing
the pause button. Answering all items is important even if you experience
psychological discomfort in the process because some items will be discarded after
the statistical analysis. The tape of the nine speakers is 18 minutes and 45 seconds.
At the end of the nine ratings, you will be given five minutes to fill out the
demographic information and to respond to one written situation.

After a brief pause, a practice session was given. The verbal instructions were:

For practice, you will rate one sample speaker and have the opportunity to ask
questions about this procedure before rating consecutively the nine speakers. Turn
your rating booklet to the next page, at the top it should read "Practice Voice I."
You will darken the circles corresponding to your ratings on the green computer
answer sheet numbers 1 to 16. Wait until you have an impression of the speaker
before making your ratings. You need not wait until the speaker has completed the
passage to begin making your ratings. You will now listen to and rate practice
voice one.

After all subjects had completed their ratings for the practice voice, asked questions, and were

familiar with the procedure, they were given the following instructions:


Turn to the next page of your rating booklet. Voice 2 should be written at the top.
Wait until you have an impression of each speaker before making your ratings.
You need not wait until the speaker has completed the passage to begin making
your ratings. You will have 15 seconds between each voice to complete your
rating. If you need more time to finish rating a speaker, just raise your hand. Now
listen and rate the nine speakers. When you are done look up.

When all subjects had completed their ratings for the ninth voice, they were instructed to

turn to the demographic section of their rating booklet. Subjects were asked to fill out the

demographic information in the rating booklet and on the computer answer sheet. They were

invited to ask questions when necessary.

Upon completion of the demographic section, the printed instructions were read aloud from

the final section of the rating booklet. Subjects were instructed to read and then rate as quickly as

possible whichever of the three versions of the counselor situation form containing written ethnic

referents (new client, new Chinese client, and new Cuban client) that they received. Subjects had

the opportunity to ask for further clarification before beginning their ratings.

Five minutes was the average time needed for filling out the demographics and counselor

situation form. Upon completion of the counselor situation form, rating booklets and answer sheets

were collected. Subjects were thanked for their participation and asked not to discuss the study









until a specified date when students in their department would no longer be participating in this

study. The researcher was available to discuss the study and answer questions immediately

following students' participation in this study.

Research Design and Statistical Analyses

Nine adjective pairs representing the three primary dimensions of the semantic differential

were included in the semantic differential scales for rating voice and the scales for rating the written

counselor situation form. The semantic differential scales for accented voice and for written ethnic

referent were comprised of the same set of three adjective pairs for each dimension with one

exception from the potency dimension. Seven additional adjective pairs for the voice scales and ten

other additional adjective pairs for the written counselor situation form were included on the

respective semantic differential scales.

According to Kerlinger (1973), the three main sources of variance inherent in the semantic

differential technique are concepts, scales and subjects. There were three main sources of variance

in the semantic differential technique in this study: concepts (ethnicity as represented by accented

voices and written ethnic referents on the counselor situation form), scales (the actual adjective pairs

selected for use), and subjects (counselor trainees). It is appropriate to analyze scores for

differences between concepts, between scales, between subjects, and the combinations thereof

(Kerlinger, 1973). Analyses for this study included two-way factorial designs with repeated

measures.

In this study, the dependent variables were ratings of each dimension (evaluative, potency,

and activity) on the semantic differential scales. The nine adjective pairs representing the three

dimensions on the semantic differential scales for voice were the same as the nine adjective pairs on

the scales for written ethnic referents with the exception on the potency dimension of

capable/ifmcapable on the scales for the written form replacing powerful/powerless on the voice

scales. Subjects provided ratings of ethnic accented voice and ratings of the written counselor

situation form with ethnic referents. Because subjects were measured across all levels of the

independent variables (gender and ethnicity) in this study with three dependent variables (ratings on









each dimension), analyses of variance with repeated measures were appropriate. All tests of

statistical significance were performed at the p<.05 level. The analyses were done with the

Statistical Analysis System Program.

In Hypothesis One, it was stated that no difference would exist among the subjects' ratings

of taped voices employing network English, Spanish-accented English, and Chinese-accented

English on the three primary dimensions (evaluative, activity, and potency) of the semantic

differential scales. For this hypothesis, 3 two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used with

ratings of the ethnic accented voices as the repeated measure for each of the three dimensions. The

dependent variables were subjects' ratings on the three dimensions of the semantic differential

scales. The two independent variables were gender and accent. There were two levels of gender

and three levels of accent making this a 2 X 3 design. Speaker similarity within accent group was

assumed and, therefore, speakers' scores were averaged within accent group. These averaged

scores were then used for the comparison among the accent groups.

In Hypothesis Two, it was stated that no difference would exist among subjects' ratings of

the three counselor situation forms with written ethnic referents on the dimensions of the semantic

differential scale. Like Hypothesis One, the dependent variables for Hypothesis Two were

subjects' ratings on the three dimensions of the semantic differential scale; therefore 3 two-way

ANOVAs were used. There were two independent or predictor variables, which were written

ethnic referent and gender. There were two levels of gender and three levels of ethnic referent on

the counselor situation form: a new Chinese client, a new Cuban client, or a new client making this

a 2 X 3 design. The subjects were divided into three groups through the random distribution to

subjects of the counselor situation forms in a 1, 2, 3 repeating order. Each group responded to

only one of the three versions of the counselor situation form, as did Sedlacek and White's (1987)

subjects in their recent study of white students attitudes toward blacks and Hispanics. The variance

within the three counselor trainee groups was tested and the assumption of equal variance held.

The three levels of the written ethnicity variable paralleled the auditory representation of ethnicity

levels, accented speech (Chinese, Spanish, and network), in Hypothesis One.









In Hypothesis Three, it was stated that no difference would exist among subjects' ratings of

each ethnic accent and the corresponding written ethnic referent. Ratings on the three dimensions of

the semantic differential scales for each of the three accent groups were compared to ratings on the

corresponding written ethnic referents (representing U.S. born, Cuban born, and Chinese born) on

the counselor situation form. Subjects received one of the three counselor situation forms which

means the subjects were divided into three equal groups for comparison. For example, if a subject

received the counselor situation form with a new Chinese client, then that subject's ratings on the

three dimensions of the semantic differential for the written Chinese referent would be compared to

that subject's ratings on the three dimensions of the semantic differential for the Chinese-accented

voices. The repeated measure was subjects' ratings of ethnic voice and their ratings of the written

ethnic referent on each of the three dimensions of the semantic differential. For Hypothesis Three,

an ANOVA with repeated measures was employed to test for differences between subjects' ratings

of ethnic accented speech and the parallel written ethnic referents. Ratings were compared on the

three dimensions of the semantic differential. All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of

significance.















CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate native-born American counselor trainees'

ratings on the semantic differential as a function of their reactions to ethnic accented speech and their

reactions to written ethnic referents. The purpose also was to compare counselor trainees' ratings of

ethnic accented speech to their reactions to written ethnic referents. The results, which comprise

this chapter, supported the position that counselor trainees do demonstrate ethnic bias as a function

of their ratings of ethnic accented speech and of written ethnic referents. The results pertaining to

each of the three hypotheses presented in Chapter Three are presented sequentially.

Results of the Analyses

Hypothesis One was that no difference would exist among the subjects' ratings of taped

voices employing network English, Spanish-accented English, and Chinese-accented English on

the three primary dimensions (evaluative, activity, and potency) of the semantic differential. Three

(one for each dimension) two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures were performed. Hypothesis

One was rejected because main effects for accent were significant for each of the three dimensions

of the semantic differential. Not only did the counselor trainees rate the accented groups differently,

they rated the Cuban- and Chinese- accented speakers negatively, whereas the mean scores for the

network speakers were positive (see Table 3). On the evaluative dimension which reflects attitude,

the counselor trainees' mean score for the network speakers was .81, their mean scores for the

Chinese and Cuban speakers were -. 13 and -.20 respectively. Counselor trainees' responses

reflected bias.

In completing the analyses for Hypothesis One, gender by accent or a 2 X 3 design was

used for the 3 two-way ANOVAs. Main effects for accent were found to be significant. These

significance levels were so small that the Bonferroni inequality was used to control familywise

56











Table

Means and Standard Deviations of Subjects' Ratings of Voices for the Three Accent Groups for
Each of the Three Dimensions


Dimension Accent


Chinese Cuban Network


Evaluative

Mean -.13 -.20 .81

SD .74 .63 59

Activity

Mean -.39 -.19 .65

SD .45 .43 .36

Potency

Mean -.55 -.20 .53

SD .45 .48 .33










error rate and implied thst the family of hypotheses of no difference in accent for all three

dimensions could be rejected simultaneously at the .0003 level (see Table 4). Although no main

effects for gender were observed, accent by gender interactions were found for the evaluative and

activity dimensions.

The 16 adjective pairs of the semantic differential for voice were also analyzed individually.

The nine adjective pairs representing the three dimensions were embedded in the sixteen items. Not

only were significant differences found among counselor trainees' responses to the accent groups

on each dimension, but also significant differences were found on each adjective pair of the

semantic differential for voice. Sixteen ANOVAs with repeated measures were run for each of the

adjective pairs on the semantic differential scale for voice for a total of 48 mean scores presented in

Table 5. For example, counselor trainees rated the network voices as pleasant with a mean score of

.94 and rated the Chinese and Cuban voices as unpleasant with mean scores of -.34 and -.37

respectively. Main effects for accent were significant at the .0001 level for every adjective pair.

The significance levels were so small that the Bonferroni inequality was used to control the

familywise error rate and implied that the family of hypotheses of no difference in accent and no

difference in accent by speaker for all 16 items can be rejected simultaneously.

Hypothesis Two was that no difference would exist among subjects' ratings of the three

primary dimensions on the semantic differential for the three counselor situation forms with the

written ethnic referents: new client, new Cuban client, and new Chinese client. Three (one for each

dimension) two-way ANOVAs were performed to test Hypothesis Two. The results of these

analyses are in Table 6. Differences existed among subjects' ratings on the evaluative dimension of

the semantic differential scale, but not on the potency and activity dimensions for the three

versions of the counselor situation form; therefore, Hypothesis Two cannot be rejected. Although

significant differences were found among counselor trainees' scores on the evaluative dimension

and were quite close to significance (.0514) on the activity dimension for the written ethnic










Table 4

ANOVA Summaries of Ethnic Accent and Gender for the Three Dimensions of the Semantic
Differential Scale



Source df Type III SS Mean Squares F-value Adjusted PR>F


Evaluative Dimension

Gender (Between) 1 .54 .54 .85 .3571

Error (Gender) 120 75.80 .63

Accent (Within) 2 44.07 22.04 68.08 .0001*

Accent X Gender 2 2.92 1.46 4.51 .0226*

Error (Accent) 240 77.69 .32

Activity Dimension

Gender (Between) 1 .14 .14 .65 .4217

Error (Gender) 120 25.15 .21

Accent (Within) 2 45.47 22.73 150.25 .0001*

Accent X Gender 2 1.21 .61 4.01 .0204*

Error (Accent) 240 36.31 .15


Potency Dimension

Gender (Between) 1 .12 .12 .51 .4774

Error (Gender) 120 27.59 .23

Accent (Within) 2 49.60 24.80 160.64 .0001*

Accent X Gender 2 .27 .13 .86 .4197

Error (Accent) 240 37.05 .15

p<.05









Table 5
Mean Ratings of Voices for the Chinese. Cuban. and Network Voices on Each of the 16 Adjective
Pairs


Means of Voice

Item Adjective
No. Pair Chinese Cuban Network


1. Pleasant/ -.34 -.37 .94
Unpleasant
2. Active/ -.64 -.23 .86
Passive
3. Strong/ -.64 -.25 .96
Weak
4. Quiet/ -.40 -.09 .25
Loud
5. Friendly/ .30 -.02 .76
Unfriendly
6. Relaxed/ -.57 -.51 .82
Tense
7. Intelligent/ -.11 .42 1.13
Unintelligent
8. Calm/ -.11 -.24 .83
Agitated
9. Soft/ .40 -.06 .23
Hard
10. Good/ -.08 -.14 .73
Bad
11. Nice/ .02 -.09 .76
Awful
12. Beautiful/ -.07 -.17 .48
Ugly
13. Secure/ -.40 -.33 1.13
Fearful
14. Powerful/ -.60 -.40 .83
Powerless
15. Comfortable/ -.73 -.58 1.15
Uncomfortable
16. Fast/ -.53 .46 .54
Slow











Table 6

ANOVA Summaries for the Written Ethnic Referents and for Gender Across the Three Dimensions
of the Semantic Differential Scale


Source df SS Mean Square F-value PR>F


Evaluative Dimension

Ethnic Referent 2 2.66 4.13 .0185*

Error 116 37.35 .32

Gender 1 .04 .11 .7382

Ethnic Referent X Gender 2 .13 .20 .8182

Activity Dimension

Ethnic Referent 2 2.11 3.05 .0514

Error 116 40.25 .35

Gender 1 .24 .70 .4031

Ethnic Referent X Gender 2 1.58 2.28 .1066


Potency Dimension

Ethnic Referent 2 1.13 1.88 .1580

Error 116 35.10 .30

Gender 1 .18 .60 .4392

Group X Gender 2 .45 .74 .4780









62

referents, these differences existed within the confines of the positive side of the rating scale, which

reflects a strong socially desired response set (see Table 7).

The ANOVA tests for differences do not locate the differences, therefore, Duncan's

Multiple Range Tests of Differences were performed. The results of the Duncan's Multiple Range

Test of Differences for the dimension means were: counselor attitudes as reflected by their ratings of

the new client form differed significantly from their attitudes as reflected by their ratings of the

Chinese and Cuban client forms on the evaluative dimension; counselor trainees ratings of the new

client form differed from their ratings of the Chinese client form on the potency dimension; and

counselor trainees ratings of the new client form differed from their ratings of the Cuban and

Chinese client forms on the activity dimension. By virtue of using Duncan's protection from Type I

error was adequate. The results are presented in Tables 8, 9, and 10.

The 19 adjective pairs of the semantic differential scale for the counselor situation form

were analyzed individually including the parallel nine adjective pairs representing the dimensions.

The item by item results of an ANOVA performed with the three ethnic versions of the counselor

situation form are presented in Table 11. The subjects rated the new client form more positively

than they rated the new Chinese and the new Cuban client forms on all 19 items. American-born

counselor trainees reported feeling more pleased, active, understanding, capable, good, and

comfortable with all three client groups, but they reported feeling significantly less so with Chinese

and Cuban clients. For example, counselor trainees responded that they were pleased at the thought

of meeting a new client, a new Chinese client, and a new Cuban client with mean scores of 1.48,

.57, and .50, respectively, thus illustrating the relative difference in strength of their positive

feeling. Of the 19 items comprising the semantic differential scale for written ethnic labels, the

following were significantly different at the .05 level: (a) pleased/displeased, (b) active/passive,

(c), trusting/suspicious, (d) understanding/indifferent, (e) capable/incapable, (f) good/bad, (g)

comfortable/uncomfortable, and (h) superior/inferior (see Table 11). Borderline items with











Table 7

Means and Standard Deviations of the Subjects' Ratings of Written Ethnic Referents Representing
the Three Written Forms (Chinese Client. Cuban Client, and New Client) for Each of the Three
Dimensions


Dimension Written Ethnic Referent


Chinese Cuban New

Evaluative

Means .90 .88 1.30

Standard Deviations .77 .77 .71
Activity

Means .14 .29 .66

Standard Deviations .68 .58 .52

Potency

Means .28 .35 .58

Standard Deviations .68 .52 .52









Table 8
Duncan's Multiple Range Test for the Evaluative Dimension of the Semantic Differential Scale for
the Counselor Situation Form with Ethnic Referents


Duncan Grouping* Mean Number Group


A .9833 40 New Client

B .6000 40 Cuban Group

B .5556 42 Chinese Group
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.



Table 9

Duncan's Multiple Range Test for the Potency Dimension of the Semantic Differential Scale for the
Counselor Situation Form with Ethnic Referents



Duncan Grouping* Mean Number Group


A .5833 40 New Client

B A .3583 40 Cuban Client

B .2857 42 Chinese Client

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.



Table 10

Duncan's Multiple Range Test for the Activity Dimension of the Semantic Differential Scale for the
Counselor Situation Form with Ethnic Referents


Duncan Grouping* Mean Number Group


A .6667 40 New Client

B .2917 40 Cuban Client

B .1429 42 Chinese Client
* Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










Table 11

Mean Ratings of the Three Written Counselor Situation Forms (Chinese Client. Cuban Client. or
New Client) For Each of the 19 Adjective Pairs


Item Adjective Mean Scores
No. Pairs Chinese Cuban New


1. Pleased/ .57 .50 1.48
Displeased*
2. Active/ .36 .58 1.18
Passive*
3. Quiet/ .57 .25 .18
Loud
4. Trusting/ .57 .30 .88
Suspicious*
5. Understanding/ .83 .75 1.25
Indifferent*
6. Capable/ .59 .70 1.30
Incapable*
7. Interested/ 1.24 1.28 1.62
Uninterested
8. Secure/ .67 .63 1.10
Fearful
9. Good/ .76 .78 1.38
Bad*
10. Comfortable/ .64 .38 1.00
Uncomfortable*
11. Relaxed/ .52 .35 .75
Tense
12. Nice/ .83 .80 1.15
Awful
13. Strong/ .74 .80 1.03
Weak
14. Pleasant/ 1.12 .08 1.38
Unpleasant
15. Superior/ .07 .23 .43
Inferior*
16. Calm/ .64 .55 1.00
Agitated
17. Neutral/ 1.17 1.03 1.45
Threatened
18. Soft/ .48 .43 .58
Hard
19. Familiar/ -.17 .00 .49
Unfamiliar


* p< .05










significance levels between .05 and .10 on ethnic label were: (a) loud/quiet, (b) interested/

uninterested, (c) secure/fearful, (d) calm/agitated, and (e) neutral/threatened.

Hypothesis Three was that no difference would exist among subjects' ratings of each ethnic

accented group and the corresponding written ethnic referent. Ratings on the three dimensions of

the semantic differential for each of the three accent groups were compared with ratings on the

corresponding written ethnic referents (representing U.S. born, Cuban born, and Chinese born).

Hypothesis Three was rejected because the analysis of difference between subjects' ratings of voice

and of written ethnic referent was significant on all three dimensions for two of the three ethnic

groups (see Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15.).

Native-born American counselor trainees responded significantly different to spoken and

written stimuli. They rated the Chinese accented voices differently from the written Chinese client

referent. They also rated the Spanish-accented voices significantly different than they rated the

written Cuban client referent. They did not rate the network English voices differently than they

rated the counselor situation form that contained no ethnic referent, i.e., a new client.

Counselor trainees responses to ethnic accented speech reflected bias on all three

dimensions of the semantic differential scale. Their responses to written ethnic referents reflected

bias only on the evaluative dimension. Although significant differences were found on the

evaluative dimension using both speech and written stimuli, the important distinction was that

subjects' ratings of ethnic accented speech elicited negative responses. Subjects' ratings of the

written form on the same semantic differential scale elicited only varying degrees of socially

desirable responses. Therefore, when ethnic dissimilarity is present, assessing counselor trainees'

ethnic attitudes can best be accomplished through eliciting their reactions to ethnic accented speech.

Analyses were performed to include all the demographic variables: gender, race, age, time

out of the United States, length of time in the counseling program, other languages spoken, and

school of attendance. Race and time out of the country were tested in separate univariate analyses

and no significant differences were found. More nonwhite subjects and more subjects who had










Table 12

Means and Standard Deviations (SD) of Ratings of Ethnic Accented Voice and Ratings of the
Written Ethnic Referents for the Three Dimensions of the Semantic Differential and Results of the
Test of Differences


Evaluative Potency Activity

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD


Chinese-born

Written Referent .56 .59 .29 .68 .14 .68

Accented Voices -.18 .72 -.53 .44 -.44 .37

Cuban-born

Written Referent .60 .52 .36 .29 .29 .58

Accented Voices -.19 .67 -.26 .52 -.23 .45

American-born

No Ethnic Referent .98 .57 .58 .40 .67 .52

Network Voices .81 .55 .49 .29 .64 .36











Table13
ANOVA Summaries for the Hypothesis of No Difference Between Written and Voiced Methods for
the Chinese-Born on the Three Dimensions


Chinese-born


Source df Type III SS Mean Squares F-value PR>F


Evaluative Dimension

Method 1 11.44 11.44 28.76 .0001

Error 41 16.38 .40

Potency Dimension

Method 1 14.12 14.12 43.64 .0001

Error 41 13.27 .32

Activity Dimension

Method 1 7.05 7.05 29.76 .0001

Error 41 9.71 .24










Table 14

ANOVA Summaries for the Hypothesis of No Difference Between Written and Voiced Methods for
the Cuban-Born on the three dimensions


Cuban-bomrn


Source df Type III SS Mean Squares F-value PR>F


Evaluative Dimension

Method 1 12.62 12.62 34.99 .0001

Error 39 14.07 .36

Potency Dimension

Method 1 7.54 7.54 26.90 .0001

Error 39 10.93 .28

Activity Dimension

Method 1 5.45 5.45 25.48 .0001

Error 39 8.35 .21









Table 15

ANOVA Summaries for the Hypothesis of No Difference Between Written and Voiced Methods for
the American-Born on the Three Dimensions


American-born


Source df Type III SS Mean Squares F-value PR>F


Evaluative Dimension

Method 1 .56 .56 3.13 .0849

Error 39 7.05 .18

Potency Dimension

Method 1 .19 .16 1.94 .1715

Error 39 3.18 .08

Activity Dimension

Method 1 .01 .01 .10 .7561

Error 39 4.98 .13










been out of the country for a year or more would be needed to test these factors adequately. The

factors of gender and length of time in program were tested in a single model. This analysis

showed that main effects for gender, length of time in the program, and the interaction of gender by

length of time in the program were not significant overall. The factors of age, other languages

spoken, and school attended were not significant over items or dimensions. No group of subjects

representing a particular school showed patterns of scoring high or low; therefore groups were

considered equivalent.

Speaker similarity within accent group was assumed and, therefore, speakers' scores were

averaged within accent group. These averaged scores were then used for the comparison among

accent groups on dimensions. In following prior sociolinguistic research design, each Cuban

speaker was assumed to be similar to all other Cuban speakers; each Chinese speaker was assumed

to be similar to all other Chinese speakers; and each network speaker was assumed to be similar to

all other network speakers. The analyses were run with averaged within-accent group speaker

scores and differences in ratings of accent were significant.

Summary of the Results

Analyses were completed of the responses of counseling students to taped voices of three

accent levels and to written forms at corresponding levels to determine whether counselor trainees

demonstrated ethnic bias. Of the 147 participants, 122 met the criteria for inclusion as subjects. Of

these 122 subjects, there were 94 females and 28 males; there were 113 whites, 7 blacks, 1 Asian

American, and 1 Hispanic; there were 48 who spoke a language other than English and 74 who did

not; there were 19 who had not been outside the United States and, of the 103 who had been out, 50

had been out for less than one month, 36 for less than a year but more than a month, and 17 for

more than a year, there were 27 who had been in the counseling program for one semester, 35 for

two or three semesters, and 60 for four or more semesters; and there were 33 from the University

of Central Florida, 42 from the University of Florida, and 47 from the University of North Florida.










Participants who themselves and whose parents were born in the United States and who spoke

English as their first language met the criteria to be subjects.

Each of the 122 subjects who met the criteria responded to the semantic differential scales

that included three adjective pairs representing each of the three dimensions (evaluative, activity,

and potency). Subjects did make differential evaluations of the accented voices employing network

English, Spanish-accented English, and Chinese-accented English, with strong positive responses

to the network speakers. Subjects did make differential ratings on the evaluative dimension which

reflects attitude and on the activity dimension on the written counselor situation form comprised of

different ethnic referents, but did so within the confines of socially desirable responses. Although

significant differences were found on the evaluative and activity dimensions in counselor trainees'

responses to both spoken and written forms, they did not respond negatively to the written ethnic

referents, but did respond negatively to the ethnically dissimilar voices.

The results support the theory that cultural/ethnic bias is deeply ingrained and that

counselors in training demonstrate the stereotypic biases present in their culture. These biases were

observed regardless of age, race, gender, time in the counseling program, time out of the country,

other languages spoken, and school of attendance. None of the demographic variables made a

statistically significant difference. The results strongly support the position that counselor trainees

demonstrate ethnic bias toward accented speech. Ethnic accented speech elicited both positive and

negative attitudes on the part of counselor trainees, whereas written ethnic referents elicited only

socially desirable response sets.














CHAPTER HFIVE
SUMMARY, IMMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of ethnicity on native-born American

counselor trainees' reactions to accented speech and their reactions to written ethnic referents.

Counselor trainees reacted more negatively to ethnic accented speech than to the written ethnic

referents. These results supported the sociolinguists' position that accented speech serves as a

better stimulus than written surveys for eliciting unedited ethnic attitudes.

There was a highly significant difference among the subjects' ratings of taped voices

employing network, Spanish-accented and Chinese-accented English on the semantic differential.

Counselor trainees rated the network English speakers more positively than the Chinese-accented

and Spanish-accented (Cuban) speakers on all three dimensions and on all 16 adjective pairs of the

semantic differential scale. These differential ratings of accented voices on the dimensions and the

individual adjective pairs were statistically significant at the p < .0001 level. The most important

difference was on the evaluative dimension which is a reliable measure of attitude. Counselor

trainees' unconscious biased attitudes were elicited to speech cues. The familiar network voices

very rated positively, while generally the accented voices were rated negatively.

Differential pronunciation of a counselor's native language, English, by clients is an

important area for counselor education research. Counseling operates almost entirely on spoken

interaction. It is critically important for cross-cultural counselors to make any unconscious cultural

biases conscious. For instance, as a result of participating in this study, several subjects (counselor

trainees) told the researcher that they had not realized that they were biased toward accented

speakers. Some subjects were made aware of their biases through their participation and were in a

new position of self-awareness from which they could consciously confront their biases. Their

statements also demonstrated the potential contribution that sociolinguistic methodology can make to









counseling research and training. This model of having counselor trainees rate accented speakers

and then additionally look at their own individual results on items could be used in counselor

training programs to help counselor trainees increase their level of self-awareness as it relates to

culturally different clients. Self-awareness is not sufficient to make a cross-cultural counselor, but

it is a critical first step.

There were no statistically significant differences between male and female ratings of the

nine female speakers on the semantic differential scales, yet gender by accent interactions were

found for the evaluative and activity dimensions. It would be interesting to include both male and

female speakers in the design of future studies to investigate if there would be any observed gender

differences. There has been a gender by content interaction found in at least one other study

(Markel & Roblin, 1965), which may mean differences that actually existed were not observed due

to the content neutral nature of the passage read by the speakers in the study.

Counselor trainees' ratings of the three versions of the counselor situation form with

written ethnic referents differed by dimensions (evaluative, activity, and potency) and adjective

pairs. Although counselor trainees reported feeling pleased in regards to meeting new clients,

Chinese client, and Cuban clients, they felt significantly less pleased in meeting the Chinese and

Cuban clients. The Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Mean Differences showed that the group

with the new client form differed significantly from the groups with the Chinese client form and the

Cuban client form on the following items: (a) pleased/displeased, (b) active/passive, (c)

understanding/indifferent, (d) capable/incapable, (e) interested/uninterested, (f) good/bad, and (g)

familiar/ unfamiliar.

Ratings of the written new client form differed from ratings of the Cuban client form but

did not differ from ratings of the Chinese client form on the following adjective pairs: trusting/

suspicious, secure/fearful, comfortable/uncomfortable, calm/agitated, and neutral/threatened.

Ratings of the new client form differed from ratings of the Chinese client form but did not differ

from ratings of the Cuban client form on the following items: quiet/loud and inferior/superior. The









counselor trainees felt less trusting, secure, comfortable, calm, and neutral when the Cuban ethnic

referent was present. They felt louder and superior when the Chinese ethnic referent was present.

The means for each dimension and adjective pair were all on the positive side of the scale.

What varied was the strength of their positive reporting. Counselor trainees responded to written

ethnic referents in socially desirable ways but still varied significantly within that social desirability.

This finding adds support to the utilization by counselor researchers of the sociolinguistic method

of subjects rating taped voices as the stimulus for measuring ethnic attitudes to ensure more accurate

projections of their unconscious biases.

Implications

Whenever paper and pencil tests are relied upon to assess bias, it is likely that true or

unedited attitudes of counselor trainees toward culturally different people will tend to be more

positive. This study gave evidence of the power of using accented verbal stimuli over written ethnic

stimuli for eliciting more accurate counselor trainees' ethnic biases.

Counselor educators must be alert to the potential dangers of ethnic bias associated with

accented speech because verbal exchange is central to counseling. Therefore, counselor educators

must consider counselor trainees' biases in preparing training programs. It is the responsibility of

the counseling profession to design training that stimulates an awareness of the counselor trainees'

unconscious biases toward culturally different people. Counselor trainees' biased attitudes can be

elicited and by so doing, training can be developed to help them make conscious their own deeply

ingrained culturally learned biases and overcome them. Part of the training might include a

replication of the procedures used in this study, not for the purposes of research, but as an exercise

in cultural self-awareness for counselor trainees to examine the differences they manifest in their

responses to any ethnically acented speakers (clients).

Statistically significant differences among counselor trainees' evaluations of ethnically

different people based on accent were found in this study. This study demonstrated the relative

power of using counselor trainees evaluations of accented speech over written evaluations to elicit

their own unconscious biases and attitudes toward ethnically different people.









It is the counseling profession's responsibility through training to do as much as possible to

stimulate counselor self-awareness. Because the composition of the United States' population is

changing so rapidly and dramatically, it is critical that training must include and encourage

awareness of the counselor trainees' unconscious biases and attitudes toward culturally different

people. As the population changes, so does the clientele, creating the need for cross-culturally

sensitive counselors.

Recommendations

One of the strengths as well as limitations of this study is related to the emotionally neutral

content of the passage read for the tape recordings. This emotionally neutral reading helped isolate

accent as the variable of interest while at the same time reading a passage was not a natural

reproduction of how people speak, particularly how clients in distress might speak. Future

research designs might give up the control of verbal content and utilize natural speech on the voice

recordings.

Another strength and simultaneous limitation in this study is that all speakers were female.

The strength comes from the control of gender as a variable. Replications of this study with male

speakers might yield different results. If females as a group are rated significantly different from

males on voice by subjects, then this study does not account for those differences. It would be

necessary to design studies that include both male and female speakers within accent group to

investigate how gender alone as well as how gender interacts with accent in counselor biases.

It is recommended that the sociolinguistic methods of attaining measures of bias from

voice be further explored for inclusion in counselor education training programs. Future studies

should be designed to assess counselor attitudes toward other ethnic groups as well as toward

Chinese and Cuban Americans. Variations of this study using gender as a variable within accent

groups and also using emotionally laden verbal content might produce different results. It is

recommended that the sociolinguistic methods of attaining measures of bias from voice be further

explored for inclusion in counselor education research.















APPENDIX A

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PERMISSION










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD


1. TITLE OF PROJECT: Evaluative Reactions of American-born Counselor Trainees to Speakers of
Network, Chinese, and Spanish Accented English Speech and to Written Ethnic Referents: An Intercultural
Study

2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Jennifer Ann Lund, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Couselor
Education, 3535 N.W. 7th Place, Gainesville, Florida 32607, 378-3654.
3. SUPERVISOR: Dr. Janet Larsen, 1215 Norman Hall, Deaprtment of Counselor Education, UF,
392-0731.

4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROJECT: From October 1987 to October 1988.

5. SOURCES OF FUNDING: Jennifer A. Lund

6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: The purpose of this study is to investigate
the effect of speaker accent on judgements of personality by American born counselor trainees who are
currently in graduate programs studying counseling.

7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE: The
procedures used will be experimental and descriptive. They in no way involve any experimental treatment.
Participants will listen to voice recordings of a story read by several speakers with various accents.
Participants will then respond to where each voice falls between bi-polar adjective pairs, for example,
pleasant -- -- -- unpleasant. These adjective pairs will be based on Charles Osgood's
Semantic Differential. After listening and responding to these tapes each participant will fill out
anonymously a demographic form. After all data has been collected some students may be randomally
selected through class rosters and invited to participate in an informal interview.

8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK: Counselor trainees (graduate students of
counseling) will be participants at 'minium risk'. Their names will not be on the response forms and will
thus be kept completely confidential.

9. DESCRIBE HOW MANY SUBJECTS WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER, AND AGE OF
SUBJECTS, AND PROPOSED MONETARY COMPENSATION: I will ask graduate Counseling faculty
for permission to administer the adjective pair instrument based on the Semantic Differential to intact
graduate level counseling classes. Participation will be completely voluntary. There will be no monetary
compensation. The ages will be whatever age the students happen to be. I need 120 participants for this
study.

10. DESCRIBE INFORMED CONSENT:
Your participation in this study will take no more than fifteen minutes and is voluntary. If you do not
wish to participate you are free to leave or you may stay and turn in the response booklet without any
responses in it with the rest of the class at the end of the experiment.
Instructions for each class will include: You will rate each voice on the characteristics listed in
your response booklet. Each characteristic is listed as a set of opposite adjective pairs. You will rate each
voice somewhere between each adjective pair. Put a check above one of the six lines separating the
adjective pairs, for example,
pleasant __ unpleasant
which represents a scale going from very pleasant, to pleasant, to somewhat pleasant, to somewhat
unpleasant, to unpleasant, to very unpleasant. Listen to each voice and begin scoring as soon as you have
an impression of what type of person each speaker is.


Principal Investigator's Signature


Supervisor's Signature

















APPENDIX B

THE RATING BOOKLET










RATING BOOKLET


YOU ARE SUBJECT #______

FILL IN THIS NUMBER ON THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SPACE ON PAGE TWO OF

YOUR GREEN COMPUTER ANSWER SHEET (DARKEN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCLES

UNDER EACH NUMBER). DARKEN THE CIRCLES UNDER THE NUMBERS

CORRESPONDING TO YOUR BIRTH DATE AND ALSO DARKEN THE CIRCLES UNDER

F OR M CORRESPONDING TO YOUR GENDER.











The Trip by C.K. Thomas

One horrid rainy day, rather late in February, we started south, along a desolate road

through the forest. Now and then we heard frogs in the swamps on the peninsula. Later a goose

honked, and the fog rolled in from the water. After three or four miles, the road came out onto a

barren sandy stretch. Here and there was a barnyard, with a donkey or a few hogs. Some orange

flowers grew beside the road. Suddenly the rain came down in torrents, and the roof of the car

began to leak. We were sorry that we hadn't fixed it before leaving home, but our plans had

involved so many details that we hadn't bothered. Our clothes absorbed so much dampness that we

felt cold, so we hurried to the next village.

After leaving the car to be greased at a garage, we found a restaurant, where we ordered

coffee and pancakes with maple syrup. We waited for lunch by a huge fireplace, where a cheerful

log fire was burning. The walls and floor were made of heavy pine boards, which were black with

soot. We were surprised to see various queer things in odd comers. There was a glass case filled

with dolls, some of which were from foreign lands. Next to the chimney was a calendar that

advertised a laundry, and beyond it was a horrible old parrot on a perch. We watched this absurd

scene until a waiter brought our lunch through a narrow sort of corridor from the kitchen. While we

ate we tried to solve a crossword puzzle, but our hands were so greasy that we had to wash and

rinse them first.

When we finished we found that the rain had cleared up enough to warren our going on.

We borrowed a cloth to clean the car windows, and hoped that tomorrow would bring good

weather. The route number seemed to correspond with the one on our road map, and we

followed it past the old stone quarry near the Oregon state line. That night we slept in a tourist

cabin, and listened to a windmill which revolved slowly and noisily outside our door.













VOICE # 1
PRACTICE

A B C D


pleasant

passive

strong

quiet

unfriendly

relaxed

intelligent

agitated

soft

good

awful

beautiful

fearful

powerless

comfortable

fast


I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard
bad


nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow



















17) pleasant

18) passive

19) strong

20) quiet

21) unfriendly

22) relaxed

23) intelligent

24) agitated

25) soft

26) good

27) awful

28) beautiful

29) fearful

30) powerless

31) comfortable

32) fast


VOICE # 2


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard
Ibad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.



















33) pleasant

34) passive

35) strong

36) quiet

37) unfriendly

38) relaxed

39) intelligent

40) agitated

41) soft

42) good

43) awful

44) beautiful

45) fearful

46) powerless

47) comfortable

48) fast


VOICE # 3


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.

















49) pleasant

50) passive

51) strong

52) quiet

53) unfriendly

54) relaxed

55) intelligent

56) agitated

57) soft

58) good

59) awful

60) beautiful

61) fearful

62) powerless

63) comfortable

64) fast


VOICE # 4


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.
















65) pleasant

66) passive

67) strong

68) quiet

69) unfriendly

70) relaxed

71) intelligent

72) agitated

73) soft

74) good

75) awful

76) beautiful

77) fearful

78) powerless

79) comfortable

80) fast


VOICE # 5


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.

















81) pleasant

82) passive

83) strong

84) quiet

85) unfriendly

86) relaxed

87) intelligent

88) agitated

89) soft

90) good

91) awful

92) beautiful

93) fearful

94) powerless

95) comfortable

96) fast


VOICE # 6


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.












VOICE # 7


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I 1 I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I 1 1 I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


97)

98)

99)

100)

101)

102)

103)

104)

105)

106)

107)

108)

109)

110)

111)

112)


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.


pleasant

passive

strong

quiet

unfriendly

relaxed

intelligent

agitated

soft

good

awful

beautiful

fearful

powerless

comfortable

fast


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow
















113) pleasant

112) passive

113) strong

114) quiet

115) unfriendly

116) relaxed

117) intelligent

118) agitated

119) soft

110) good

111) awful

112) beautiful

113) fearful

114) powerless

115) comfortable

116) fast


VOICE # 8


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.












VOICE # 9


A B C D E

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I 1 I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


117)

118)

119)

120)

121)

122)

123)

124)

125)

126)

127)

128)

129)

130)

131)


When you have completed the ratings for this voice, turn to the next page and wait for the next voice.


pleasant

passive

strong

quiet

unfriendly

relaxed

intelligent

agitated

soft

good

awful

beautiful

fearful

powerless

comfortable


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

hbad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow


132) fast












VOICE # 10

A B C D


133)

134)

135)

136)

137)

138)

139)

140)

141)

142)

143)

144)

145)

146)

147)

148)


pleasant

passive

strong

quiet

unfriendly

relaxed

intelligent

agitated

soft

good

awful

beautiful

fearful

powerless

comfortable

fast


Please wait for further instruction.


I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I


unpleasant

active

weak

loud

friendly

tense

unintelligent

calm

hard

bad

nice

ugly

secure

powerful

uncomfortable

slow










Subject #___
DEMOGRAPHICS

PLEASE CIRCLE THE LETTER OF YOUR ANSWER ON THESE PAGES AND THEN
BUBBLE IN THE LETTER ON YOUR COMPUTER ANSWER SHEET.
Please answer all questions (161-171).

161. My gender is:


Female
Male


162. My race is:


A. Caucasian
B. Negro
C. Asian American
D. Hispanic American
E. Native American Indian
0. Other, (fill-in)___________

163. I was born in the United States.

A. True
B. False

164. My parents were born in the United States.

A. True
B. False


165. My parents first language is English.

A. True
B. False
166. My first language is English.


True
False


167. I speak one or more other languages.


True
False


[If true, what languages (list) I


168. I have been out of the United States to one or more other countries.

A. True
B. False

169. If 168 is true, for what length of time were you out of the country?
If not, choose D, does not apply.

A. Less than 1 month
B. Less than 1 year (yet more than one month)
C. More than 1 year
D. Does not apply