Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T12:24:17.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring language attitudes using the Personalized Implicit Association Test: A case study on regional varieties of Dutch in Belgium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2018

Laura Rosseel ,
Dirk Speelman  and
Dirk Geeraerts
Laura Rosseel
Affiliation:
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium FWO, Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium
Dirk Speelman
Affiliation:
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Geeraerts
Affiliation:
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces the Personalized Implicit Association Test (P-IAT, Olson & Fazio, 2004) as a novel measure for language attitudes. Tying in with sociolinguists’ renewed interest in social psychological attitude measures (e.g., Campbell-Kibler, 2012; Pantos & Perkins, 2012; Speelman, Spruyt, Impe & Geeraerts, 2013), the study uses the P-IAT to measure associations with regional varieties of Belgian Dutch and compares the results to an explicit measurement, as well as the results from an experiment using auditory affective priming, another reaction time based attitude measure developed in social psychology, reported in Speelman et al. (2013). Results from both implicit measures show a strong preference for the standard variety of Belgian Dutch over out-group regional varieties, as well as in-group preferences for participants’ own variety over other regional varieties. However, results do not entirely coincide. The paper concludes by discussing the benefits and potential demerits of the P-IAT as a measure of language attitudes.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistic Geography , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , April 2018 , pp. 20 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

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

References

Albarracín, Dolores, Wang, Wei, Li, Hong & Noguchi, Kenji. 2008. Structure of attitudes. Judgments, memory, and implications for change. In William D. Crano & Radmila Prislin (eds.), Attitudes and Attitude Change, 19-39. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Babel, Molly. 2010. Dialect divergence and convergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 39(4). 437-456.Google Scholar
Bezooijen, Renée van. 2001. Poldernederlands. Hoe kijken vrouwen ertegenaan? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 6. 257-271.Google Scholar
Bishop, Hywel, Coupland, Nikolas & Garrett, Peter. 2005. Conceptual accent evaluation: Thirty years of accent prejudice in the UK. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics, 37. 131-154.Google Scholar
Bosson, Jennifer K., Swann, William B. & Pennebaker, James W.. 2000. Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4). 631-643.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine. 2009. The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change, 21(1). 135-156.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine. 2012. The Implicit Association Test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua, 122(7). 753-763.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Katherine. 2013. Connecting attitudes and language behavior via implicit sociolinguistic cognition. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), 307–329.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas & Bishop, Hywel. 2007. Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(1). 74-93.Google Scholar
Cuvelier, Pol. 2007. Standaardnederlands, tussentaal en dialect in Antwerpen. De perceptie van jonge moedertaalsprekers en taalleerders. In Dominiek Sandra, Rita Rymenans, Pol Cuvelier & Peter Van Petegem (eds.), Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Essays bij het emeritaat van Frans Daems, 39-58. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Cvencek, Dario, Greenwald, Anthony G., Brown, Anthony S., Gray, Nicola S. & Snowden, Robert J.. 2010. Faking of the implicit association test is statistically detectable and partly correctable. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32. 302-314.Google Scholar
De Houwer, Jan, Heider, Niclas, Spruyt, Adriaan, Roets, Arne & Hughes, Sean. 2015. The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology 6. Article, 319.Google Scholar
De Houwer, Jan, Teige-Mocigemba, Sarah, Spruyt, Adriaan & Moors, Agnes. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(3). 347-368.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., Sanbonmatsu, David M., Powell, Martha C. & Kardes, Frank R.. 1986. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2). 229-238.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Klaus & Bluemke, Matthias. 2005. Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4). 307-316.Google Scholar
Friese, Malte, Bluemke, Matthias & Wänke, Michaela. 2007. Predicting voting behavior with implicit attitude measures. Experimental Psychology, 54(4). 247-255.Google Scholar
Garrett, Peter. 2005. Attitude measurements. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 3.2, 1251-1260. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gast, Anne & Rothermund, Klaus. 2010. When old and frail is not the same: Dissociating category and stimulus effects in four implicit attitude measurement methods. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3). 479-498.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, Deutsch, Roland & Banse, Rainer. 2011. Response Interference Tasks as Indirect Measures of Automatic Associations. In Karl C. Klauer, Andreas Voss & Christoph Stahl (eds.), Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology, 78-123. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram, Peters, Kurt R. & LeBel, Etienne P.. 2008. What makes mental associations personal or extra-personal? Conceptual issues in the methodological debate about implicit attitude measures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2). 1002-1023.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram & De Houwer, Jan. 2014. Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In Harry T. Reis & Charles M. Judd (eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, 2nd ed., 283-310. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2017. Het kegelspel der taal. De naoorlogse evolutie van de Standaardnederlandsen. In Gert De Sutter (ed.), 100-120.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Van de Velde, Hans. 2013. Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch. In Frans Hinskens & Johan Taeldeman (eds.), 532-556.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie. 2009. Ne zelfzekere leraar of gewoon nen enthousiaste mens? Een matched-guise onderzoek naar de attitude tegenover tussentaal bij West-Vlamingen. Taal En Tongval, 61(2). 83-113.Google Scholar
Goossens, Jan. 1970. ‘Belgisch Beschaafd Nederlands’ en Brabantse expansie. De Nieuwe Taalgids (Van Haeringennummer), 63. 54-70.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., McGhee, Debbie E. & Schwartz, Jordan L.K.. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition:The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6). 1464-1480.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Nosek, Brian A. & Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2003. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Attitudes and Social Cognition, 85(2). 197-216.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Andrew Poehlman, T., Uhlmann, Eric Luis & Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2009. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1). 17-41.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan. 2013. Attitude measurements in the Low Countries. In Frans Hinskens & Johan Taeldeman (eds.), 586–602.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & Kristiansen, Tore. 2013. On the need to access deep evaluations when searching for the motor of standard language change. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), 9–52.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & Speelman, Dirk. 2013. Can speaker evaluation return private attitudes towards stigmatised varieties? Evidence from emergent standardisation in Belgian Dutch. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), 171–191.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & Speelman, Dirk. 2015. A quantitative analysis of qualitative free response data. Paradox or new paradigm? In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk, Speelman & Hubert Cuykens (eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 361-384. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & van Hout, Roeland. 2010. Is Standard Dutch with a regional accent standard or not? Evidence from native speakers’ attitudes. Language Variation and Change, 22(2). 221-239.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, van Hout, Roeland & Speelman, Dirk. 2011. A perceptual typology of standard language situations in the Low Countries. In Nikolas Coupland & Tore Kristiansen (eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, 199–222. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Gschwendner, Tobias, Hofmann, Wilhelm & Schmitt, Manfred. 2008. Differential stability. The effects of acute and chronic construct accessibility on the temporal stability of the implicit association test. Journal of Individual Differences, 29(2). 70-79.Google Scholar
Hilton, Nanna Haug, Rosseel, Laura, Smidt, Eva M. & Coler, Matt. 2016. Using the IAT to understand the relationship between variant usage patterns and social meaning. Talk presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 21, 15 June 2016, Murcia.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Wilhelm, Gawronski, Bertram, Gschwendner, Tobias, Le, Huy & Schmitt, Manfred. 2005a. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10). 1369-1385.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Wilhelm, Gschwendner, Tobias, Nosek, Brian A. & Schmitt, Manfred. 2005b. What moderates implicit—explicit consistency? European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1). 335-390.Google Scholar
Houben, Katrijn & Wiers, Reinout W.. 2006. Assessing implicit alcohol associations with the Implicit Association Test: Fact or artifact? Addictive Behaviors, 31. 1346-1362.Google Scholar
Impe, Leen. 2006. Een attitudineel mixed guise-onderzoek naar tussentaal in Vlaanderen. Leuven: University of Leuven MA dissertation.Google Scholar
Impe, Leen. 2010. Mutual intelligibility of national and regional varieties of Dutch in the Low Countries. Leuven: University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Impe, Leen & Speelman, Dirk. 2007. Vlamingen en hun (tussen)taal: Een attitudineel mixed guise-onderzoek. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor Taal- En Letterkunde, 16. 109-128.Google Scholar
Karpinski, Adrew & Hilton, James L.. 2001. Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81. 774-778.Google Scholar
Karpinski, Andrew & Steinman, Ross B.. 2006. The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1). 16-32.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2010. Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards English influence in the Nordic countries: evidence for two levels of language ideology. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 204. 59-95.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lee, Rachelle. 2015. Implicit associations with Welsh in two educational contexts. York Papers in Linguistics, 2(14). 81-105.Google Scholar
Leinonen, Therese. 2016. Attitudes, salience, and accommodation – quantity in Finland-Swedish. Talk presented at ExAPP 2016, 22 September 2016, Vienna.Google Scholar
Llamas, Carmen, Watt, Dominic & MacFarlane, Andrew E.. 2016. Estimating the relative sociolinguistic salience of segmental variables in a dialect boundary zone. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 1163.Google Scholar
Loudermilk, Brandon C. 2015. Implicit attitudes and the perception of sociolinguistic variation. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis Preston (eds.), 137-156.Google Scholar
Lybaert, Chloé. 2014. Het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen. Percepties en attitudes van een spraakmakende generatie. Gent: Universiteit Gent dissertation.Google Scholar
Maison, Dominika, Greenwald, Anthony G. & Bruin, Ralph H.. 2004. Predictive validity of the implicit association test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4). 405-415.Google Scholar
Martin, Dan. 2014. IAT: Functions to use with data from the Implicit Association Test. R package version 0.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=IAT.Google Scholar
Marynissen, Ann. 2017. De lange weg naar een Nederlandse standaardtaal. Een beknopte geschiedenis van de standaardisering van het Nederlands. In Gert De Sutter (ed.), 60-79.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Robert. 2017. Implicit associations and explicit attitudes towards Northern English and Southern English speech. Invited talk at Newcastle University Applied Linguistics Seminar Series, 7 March 2017, Newcastle, UK.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Chis & Stoeckle, Philipp. 2013. Geographic information systems and perceptual dialectology: A method for processing draw-a-map data. Journal of Linguistic Geography, 1. 52-85.Google Scholar
Moors, Agnes, De Houwer, Jan, Hermans, Dirk, Wanmaker, Sabine, van Schie, Kevin, Van Harmelen, Anne-Laura, De Schryver, Maarten, De Winne, Jeffrey & Brysbaert, Marc. 2013. Norms of valence, arousal, dominance, and age of acquisition for 4300 Dutch words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1). 169-177.Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Banaji, Mahzarin R. & Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2002a. E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1). 161-176.Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Banaji, Mahzarin R. & Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2002b. Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1). 101-115.Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Greenwald, Anthony G. & Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2005. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2). 166-180.Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Greenwald, Anthony G. & Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2007. The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In John A. Bargh (ed.), Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and Behavior, 265-292. Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Michael A. & Fazio, Russell H.. 2004. Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test:Personalizing the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5). 653-667.Google Scholar
Pantos, Andrew J. & Perkins, Andrew. 2012. Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(1). 3-20.Google Scholar
Payne, B. Keith, Burkley, Melissa A. & Stokes, Mark B.. 2008. Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1). 16-31.Google Scholar
Penke, Lars, Eichstaedt, Jan & Asendorpf, Jens B.. 2006. Single-Attribute Implicit Association Tests (SA-IAT) for the assessment of unipolar constructs. The case of sociosexuality. Experimental Psychology, 53(4). 283-291.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. 2015. Does language regard vary? In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), 3-36.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. 2016. Whaddayaknow now? In Anna Babel (ed.), Awareness and control in sociolinguistic research, 177-199. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Redinger, Daniel. 2010. Language attitudes and code-switching behaviour in a multilingual educational context: The case of Luxembourg. York: University of York dissertation.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Laura, Geeraerts, Dirk & Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Sociaalpsychologische methodes als nieuwe meettechnieken in taalattitudeonderzoek? Het voorbeeld van de Implicit Association Test. Handelingen der Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis, 68. 25-39.Google Scholar
Rothermund, Klaus, Teige-Mocigemba, Sarah, Gast, Anne & Wentura, Dirk. 2009. Minimizing the influence of recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The Recoding-Free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(1). 84-98.Google Scholar
Schuurman, Inneke, Schouppe, Machteld, Hoekstra, Heleen & van der Wouden, Ton. 2003. CGN: an annotated corpus of spoken Dutch. In A. Abeille, S. Hansen-Schirra & H. Uszkoreit (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, 101-108. Budapest.Google Scholar
Soukup, Barbara. 2013. The measurement of “language attitudes” - A reappraisal from a constructionist perspective. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), 251–266.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Spruyt, Adriaan, Impe, Leen & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2013. Language attitudes revisited: Auditory affective priming. Journal of Pragmatics, 52. 83-92.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Adriaan, Clarysse, Jeroen, Vansteenwegen, Debora, Baeyens, Frank & Hermans, Dirk. 2010. Affect 4.0: a free software package for implementing psychological and psychophysiological experiments. Experimental Psychology, 57(1). 36-45.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Adriaan, Gast, Anne & Moors, Agnes. 2011. The sequential priming paradigm: A primer. In Karl C. Klauer et al. (eds.), 48–77.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Adriaan, Hermans, Dirk, De Houwer, Jan & Eelen, Paul. 2002. On the nature of the affective priming effect: Affective priming of naming responses. Social Cognition, 20(3). 227-256.Google Scholar
Staum Cassasanto, Laura, Grondelaers, Stefan & van Hout, Roeland. 2015. Got Class? Community-shared conceptualizations of social class in evaluative reactions to sociolinguistic variables. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), 159-173.Google Scholar
Steffens, Melanie C. 2004. Is the implicit association test immune to faking? Experimental Psychology, 51(3). 165-179.Google Scholar
Street, Richard L. Jr., Brady, Robert M. & Lee, Raymond. 1984. Evaluative responses to communicators: The effects of speech rate, sex and interaction context. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48(1). 14-27.Google Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, Sarah, Klauer, Karls C. & Rothermund, Klaus. 2008. Minimizing method-specific variance in the IAT: A Single Block IAT. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(4). 237-245.Google Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, Sarah, Klauer, Karl C. & Sherman, Jeffrey W.. 2010. A practical guide to Implicit Association Test and related tests. In Bertram Gawronski & Keith Payne (eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory and applications, 117-139. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild & Cuvelier, Pol. 2007. The perception of exclusion and proximity through the use of standard Dutch, “tussentaal” and dialect in Flanders. In Pol Cuvelier, Theodorus du Plessis, Michael Meeuwis & Lut Teck (eds.), Mulitlingualism and exclusion. Policy, practice and prospects, 241-256. Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Van Gijsel, Sofie, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. Style shifting in commercials. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2). 205-226.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic & Llamas, Carmen. 2015. Perception of difference: Socioindexical forms in the Scottish/English border region. Talk presented at ICLaVE 8, 27 May 2015, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Wigboldus, Daniel H. J., Holland, Robert W. & van Knippenberg, Ad. 2004. Single target implicit associations. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Xu, Kaiyuan, Nosek, Brian & Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2014. Data from the Race Implicit Association Test on the Project Implicit Demo Website. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 2(1). e3.Google Scholar