Factores de riesgo no modificables

Three seemingly disparate interdisciplinary theories work together to explain media influence in language attitudes. From psychology, the APE model frames attitudes as associative and propositional processes that are linked to one another but also separate. From

communications, cultivation theory posits that the media consumed by viewers shapes viewers’ perception of the non-mediated world. From linguistics, a model of language change built upon by Tore Kristiansen proposes that media influences language attitudes which, in turn, influence language change. Each of these has its own implications for the study as well as connections to one another.

Gawronski & Bodenhausen (2011) synthesize several predictions APE makes for implicit and explicit attitude change. Implicit attitude shift depends on the activated association, the individual’s experience, and individual’s dedication to logical consistency. Counterstereotypical narratives may present a cause for the shift to occur that can support logical consistency. Explicit attitudes change when different propositions are validated. New or different propositions can be offered externally as well. An outside party could tell someone that ASE-accented individuals are smart in order to shift explicit attitudes of that person. The offered alternative proposition cannot be a simple negation of the old proposition, though. That activates the old proposition, which strengthens it further.

These predictions seem to play out in the results of my experiments. The IAT results reflect an association linking ASE accents with unintelligence. This association then activates related propositions (e.g. “ASE-accented speakers are dumb”). The baseline explicit attitudes reflect a validation of these propositions in that Southern voices were rated lower on status adjectives. The media primes, however, present an alternative proposition in the

counterstereotypical condition. This alternative proposition (that an ASE-accented speaker can be smart) appears to be validated as the listeners who heard the clips with intelligent ASE- accented characters rated the RA higher in status adjectives in the evaluation compared to those who heard unintelligent ASE-accented characters. The media primes were not, however, strong enough to activate a different association or to challenge the individual’s experience or logical consistency and, thus, shift implicit attitudes. The posttest IAT remained unchanged by

127

condition. It is possible that the media primes were not strong enough to create new associations. Similarly, it takes time for an individual to build enough experiences to override already existing experiences and challenge logical consistency. Because the implicit and explicit studies are separate here, it is difficult to say with full confidence that the APE model is supported.

However, the findings do seem to match predictions, so the APE model garners modest support through this set of studies.

Engagement with Southern television may also provide support for the APE model. Assuming viewers accept what they are watching as true (which is, admittedly, a large

assumption — see Stuart Hall’s work on preferred and oppositional readings), consumption of and engagement with television with Southern characters could present different propositions the viewer could validate as true of ASE-accented speakers. The repeated acceptance of different propositions could then create new associations and, thus, shift implicit attitudes. For the most part, listeners with Southern television exposure followed expected patterns. They showed more stereotypical views of ASE-accented speakers. The trustworthiness finding, however, does not match expectations. It does, however, reflect television that the viewers were engaging with: programs with less trustworthy ASE-accented speakers. It is possible that the repeated presentation of untrustworthy Southerners led to the repeated validation of a new proposition (again, assuming these presentations are accepted as true by the viewer). Implicit attitudes tested here were only in regard to intelligence, so it is not possible to speak to whether the

trustworthiness proposition has been taken up as an association/implicit attitude. This is certainly an area to investigate in the future, though.

The Southern television results largely following expected patterns brings up cultivation theory. Cultivation theory, like parts of the APE model, proposes the uptake of repeated

propositions as true. Rather than focusing on individual attitudes differentiating implicit and explicit, though, cultivation theory deals with longitudinal shifts in world view expressed explicitly by media viewers. The longitudinal nature of the theory makes it difficult to empirically test; most supportive findings are based on short-term exposure to control for confounding variables. The stereotype-consistent findings in the Southern television variable do match up with predictions the theory makes. Those who watch more Southerners on television are more likely to encounter stereotypes about Southerners, especially one as pervasive as the unintelligence stereotype. The repeated engagement with this stereotype then leads to acceptance

128

of it as true. Correlation is not out of the picture as an explanatory factor here. It could be that people with more stereotypical views of Southerners engage more with Southern television. The pretest results do not reflect this, though. The significant findings were all in the posttest

accounting for the pretest as a covariate. If stereotypical views were driving Southern television viewing, the pretest/baseline should have captured that. Thus, cultivation theory seems a

plausible explanation, particularly taken together with the APE model.

The final theory builds from Kristiansen’s (2014) exploration of the proposal that media influences language change by influencing attitudes. Kristiansen tests the relationship between attitudes and language change, but does not test media influence on attitudes empirically. The results in this dissertation support the latter as-of-yet untested piece of the model. Television can influence attitudes, so the language change Kristiansen reports could be influenced tangentially by media through attitude shift. The relationship between television and attitudes is there; how strong it is remains unclear. Kristiansen’s theory differs from the exploration of accent here in that his model focuses more on general attitudes towards dialect diversity rather than specific stereotypes. The question was left open whether any representation of diversity is good or if negatively stereotyped dialects have negative effects on media consumers. The latter appears to be supported in the experiments discussed here. It is possible that viewers who see dialect diversity, even portrayed negatively, will be more open to dialect diversity. Their attitudes towards the speakers of those dialects, though, may not be as accepting, which may lead to repercussions for negatively portrayed accented speakers. General viewer attitudes may be more accepting, but their treatment of accented speakers of non-standard varieties may not reflect that acceptance, which could lead to external consequences for those speakers as well as internal consequences for the speaker, such as linguistic insecurity. The role of media, specifically scripted fictional television, then, could be a piece within more complicated models of sociolinguistic factors involved in language change.

In terms of theory, then, APE is one potential mechanism that explains how cultivation theory works. Cultivation, in turn, is one explanation of how media influences attitudes in Kristiansen’s model. The condition effects and Southern television variable offer support for these theories.

129