UPTALK AS A POWERLESS SPEECH STYLE CHARACTERISTIC OF JOB CANDIDATES ______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, Fullerton ______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Human Communication Studies ______

By

Victoria Gorelik

Thesis Committee Approval:

Jon Bruschke, Chair Gary Ruud, Department of Human Communication Studies K. Jeanine Congalton, Department of Human Communication Studies

Fall, 2016

ABSTRACT

Listeners’ impressions elicited by speech characteristics of a job candidate may significantly affect the outcomes of an employment interview. The study draws on the theoretical background of the powerless speech style in communication, which suggests that powerless speech style and specific language cues such as the rising intonation in declarative utterances can produce unfavorable stereotypical impressions of speakers, especially women. The current quantitative study also uses research findings in linguistics about the functions of the uptalk intonation to pose several research questions.

The main goal was to understand how the presence or absence of the uptalk intonation affects the perceptions of female speakers’ employability and other desirable characteristics in the context of a job interview. The study utilizes recorded messages of a hypothetical interview for a banking position as the stimuli for an experimental design.

Participants were recruited at a large state university and at a public place in the

Southwest of the United States. One-way ANOVAs revealed that the presence of the uptalk intonation in the speech of a female job candidate did not significantly affect the listeners’ evaluations of employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism.

The statistical analyses found that some respondents’ characteristics, namely, ethnicity, gender, age, occupation and experience of hiring or firing others could mediate the evaluations of the desirable characteristics of potential employees. This effect, however, is not pronounced.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vii

Chapter 1. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 1

Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles ...... 6 Functions and Perceptions ...... 6 Functions of Individual Cues ...... 9 Uptalk...... 10 Definitions ...... 10 Functions and Meanings ...... 11 Perceptions ...... 15 Employment Interview Context ...... 17 Powerless Speech Style in Employment Interview Context ...... 18 Uptalk in Employment Interview Context ...... 22 Rationale ...... 24

2. METHOD ...... 30

Messages ...... 30 Participants and Procedure...... 31 Variables and Statistical Analysis...... 33

3. RESULTS ...... 34

4. DISCUSSION ...... 56

Effect of Uptalk on Perceptions of Candidates’ Employability ...... 56 Effect of Uptalk on Perceptions of Other Desirable Qualities...... 58 Competence ...... 58 Social Attractiveness ...... 59 Dynamism ...... 60

iii

Effect of Respondents’ Characteristics on Perceptions of Candidates’ Employability and Other Desirable Qualities ...... 61 Gender ...... 61 Age ...... 62 Occupation ...... 63 Education Level ...... 64 Work Experience ...... 64 Native English ...... 65 Ethnicity ...... 66 Implications ...... 71 Limitations ...... 73 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 74 Conclusion ...... 76

APPENDICES ...... 77

A. EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW ...... 77 B. EMPLOYABILITY RATING SCALE ...... 78 C. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 79

REFERENCES ...... 80

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Scores of Desirable Qualities of Job Candidates with and without Uptalk Intonation ...... 34

2.1. Scores of Male and Female Respondents’ Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities ...... 36

2.2. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents Who are Younger Than 40 and Over 40 Years Old ...... 39

2.3. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by University Students and Members of General Public...... 41

2.4. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents with Different Level of Education ...... 44

2.5. Scores of Ratings of Candidate’s Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents with Different Length of Work Experience ...... 46

2.6. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents Who Have Taken Part in Hiring/Firing Decisions and Respondents Who Never Have ...... 47

2.7. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Latino/a Respondents and Others...... 49

2.8. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents for Whom English is a Native Language and for Whom English is not a Native Language...... 52

3.1. Summary of One-Way ANOVA Analyses Results ...... 54

3.2. Summary of ANOVA Analyses Results with Uptalk Condition as Independent Variable 1 ...... 55

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Mean dynamism scores of male and female respondents ...... 37

2. Mean employability scores of Latino/a and other respondents ...... 49

3. Mean competence scores of Latino/a and other respondents ...... 50

4. Mean dynamism scores of Latino/a and other respondents ...... 51

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my endless gratitude to my committee members for the enormous support, encouragement and understanding during this project. I cannot be more thankful to my chair Dr. Jon Bruschke for being the true Mentor who gives direction and highlights perspective, shares the joy of success and inspires resilience and positive attitude when times seem difficult. I could not have thought how enjoyable and valuable this experience would be thanks to Dr. Bruschke. I am humbled and grateful for every bit of it.

I would like to thank Dr. Jeanine Congalton for the unique selfless attitude and incredible moral support throughout the project and the whole program. I can hardly imagine my achievements without her inspiration and the sense of confidence and empowerment she gave me. I would like to thank Dr. Gary Ruud for his readiness to help and resolve any problem that may impede studying and working, for his valuable advice and individual approach. His wisdom and diplomacy of a Teacher allows me to learn from him even outside the classroom. I cannot imagine any other committee who would be as supportive of me. Thank you!

vii

1

CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

How someone talks can be as significant as what is being said (Brennan &

Williams, 1995). Certain characteristics of a speech style can affect the way listeners perceive a speaker (Parton, Siltanen, Hosman, & Langenderfer, 2002). This influence has been studied in various disciplines including linguistics, human communication, and rhetorical studies. Furthermore, scholars have approached this research area from the positivist, the interpretive, and the critical stance. Although the differences in perspectives and methodology may result in disagreement between studies, they can also add to a comprehensive understanding of a topic.

Sociolinguist Lakoff (1973) stated that “language uses us much as we use language” (p. 45). In her essay, she introduced the concept of “women’s language” and explained how specific speech characteristics that signal absence of power, uninvolvement and submissiveness characterize the speech of and about women. Those characteristics include syntactic, stylistic and phonological cues. Lakoff noted that, depending on their social position, some men also might exhibit a similar speech style.

The essay has generated a great amount of subsequent research as well as critique (Rubin

& Nelson, 1983). Scholars sought to test Lakoff’s assumptions, mostly from the positivist perspective (Bucholtz & Hall, 1995).

2

In their studies of witness testimonies in courtroom setting, researchers have also employed qualitative analysis (O’Barr & Atkins, 1980) and experimental design (Conley,

O’Barr, & Lind, 1979). They discovered that the use of the language cues described by

Lakoff (1973) was determined not by the sex but by the social status of the speaker.

Therefore, they indicated the language features that distinguished speakers of lower status and conceptualized their speech style as powerless. Moreover, an experimental study of listeners’ attitudes showed that witnesses who exhibited the powerless speech style were

“judged as less convincing, less competent, less intelligent, and less trustworthy” (O’Barr

& Atkins, 1980, p. 110).

The following research in communication discipline continued to study the functions of the powerless and powerful speech styles in relation to interlocutors’ gender

(e.g., Rubin & Nelson, 1983; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985), various communicative contexts

(e.g., Hosman & Siltanen, 2006; Johnson, 1987; Lloyd, Phillips, Witson, & Thomas-

Hunt, 2010), and individual powerless cues (e.g., Blankenship & Craig, 2007;

Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005). The findings challenge the assumptions that speech style is predetermined by sex (Patron et al., 2002), social or power status (e.g., Fragale,

2006; McFadyen, 1997), or that the powerless language cues produce equal effect on listeners (e.g., Bradac & Mulac, 1984).

Lakoff (1973) singled out a particular intonation pattern that pertained to female speech only. She referred to it as a rising inflection typical of yes/no questions, applied when a speaker gives a declarative answer to a question. This definition appears narrow; it broadened with subsequent research, however, to include all types of declarative statements and to receive the name uptalk among others (e.g., Warren, 2016).

3

Communication researchers included this language cue under the concept of the powerless speech style (e.g., Conley et al., 1979; O’Barr & Atkins, 1980). However, it received considerably more attention in the field of linguistics, and specifically, phonology. In fact, this intonation pattern has been singled out by linguists in other

English varieties (in Australia and New Zealand) as early as 1960s (Warren, 2016).

Phonological accounts of British English, Canadian English, South African English along with the American English suggest that the intonation phenomenon mentioned by Lakoff

(1973) is widespread. The majority of the early descriptive studies offered phonetic and sociolinguistic observations of the pattern’s occurrence with some suggestions of what meaning it conveys. Later studies carried out acoustical analysis, which measured the pitch level and the duration of the final rise (e.g., Di Gioacchino & Jessop, 2010;

Ritchart & Arvaniti, 2014; Tomlinson & Fox Tree, 2011).

Since uptalk is regarded as a relatively recent intonation phenomenon, the research focused on it has been inconsistent (Taylor, 2015; Warren, 2016). Differences in terminology, acoustic characteristics and pragmatic functions depend on the English variety and the methodology of the scholars. Generally, scholars agree that the pattern is characterized by the final rising tone on declarative utterances (Bradford, 1997), as well as the implications of nonfinality and listener orientation in discourse. Some studies in line with Lakoff (1973) state that the pattern indicates tentativeness (e.g., Conley et al.,

1979; Linnemann, 2013) and is prevalent among female and younger speakers (e.g.,

Bradford, 1997; McGregor & Sallyanne, 2008; Sando, 2009). More recent sociolinguistic and pragmatic accounts report that the rising inflection in declarative sentences is not restricted to speaker’s age, gender, power and confidence (Taylor, 2015; Warren, 2016).

4

Linguists tend to dispute the assumption that uptalk can signal the negative characteristics described by Lakoff (1973) based on descriptive and pragmatic analyses.

According to Warren (2016), the majority of such research is concerned with the when, how and why speakers use it. However, the listeners’ perception of the intonation receives less attention under this framework (Taylor, 2015). The experimental approach in communication studies could better accommodate attitudinal research. However, fewer researchers include the final rising tone as one of the language cues to construct the stimuli of the powerless speech style. One reason for neglecting it may be due to the prosodic nature of this marker, which does not allow including it in written stimuli.

Another suggestion is based on the functional linguistic analysis. It may no longer be accurate to classify the rising intonation in declarative utterances as a feature of powerless speech. To the author’s knowledge, no research of listeners’ attitudes to uptalk has recently been carried in the field of communication studies.

Despite the deficit of empirical evidence, accounts in popular press (Davis, 2010;

Key, 2013; Marr, 2014; Rhoden, 2014) reflect the negative connotations of the rising intonation. Warren (2016) conducted a qualitative analysis of 183 media items, which referred to the intonation phenomenon as uptalk or upspeak. Many of them expressed expert opinions, half of which were neutral and 78 overtly negative. In addition, accounts in popular press generally associate the rising intonation in declarative utterances with young and female speakers. Warren underlines that the media may play a crucial role in propagating discrimination on the basis of language use.

Specifically, the media accounts suggest that this speech characteristic may result in negative evaluations of a speaker in an employment interview (Gross, 2015; Key,

5

2013; Rhoden, 2014). It is assumed that the use of uptalk can significantly undermine the candidate’s employability. Such speculations seem troubling, as they are not grounded in academic research and have a potential of informing stereotypical evaluations of candidates in an actual employment interview setting.

Researchers in communication and phonology underline that the perceptions and functions of the powerless language cues and intonation depend on the communicative context (Blankenship & Craig, 2007; House, 2006; Lloyd et al., 2010; McFadyen, 1997;

McLemore, 1991; Pierrechumbert & Hirschberg, 1990; Podesva, 2011). Empirical communication research explored the influence of the powerless speech style in the context of a job interview (Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Parton et al., 2002; Rubin & Nelson,

1983; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). One of the findings across these studies supported the hypothesis that candidates who employ the powerless speech style are rated significantly lower on employability compared than those who use the powerful speech style.

However, the language cues used to construct the stimuli did not include intonation.

This study attempts to address the gap in communication research and use the findings in linguistics to inform the study of perceptions of rising inflection in declarative sentences as a feature of the powerless speech style. Aforementioned empirical studies produce valuable findings that add to the understanding of the influence of certain speech characteristics on listeners’ perceptions of speakers. Moreover, a quantitative study has the potential to offer evidence against stereotypical assumptions of the functions of rising intonation in declarative utterances. Hence, this study employs an experimental design to investigate how the intonation pattern under analysis affects the perceptions of candidates’ employability.

6

Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles

Linguistic style is an inherent component that influences the listener’s perception of the speaker and the message (Blankenship & Craig, 2007; Blankenship & Holtgraves,

2005). Individuals employ various styles of speech intentionally or unintentionally. A speech style incorporate various linguistic and paralinguistic features. Certain linguistic cues, including grammatical, lexical and intonation choices can prompt inferences of the speaker’s social status and social power. Hence, researchers distinguish between powerful and powerless speech styles. Initially, this distinction was made in the study by

Conley et al. (1979) with reference to the speech of witnesses’ testimonies in a courtroom setting. They attributed the use hedges (e.g., “I think,” “kinda”), hesitations (e.g., “uh,”

“um”), intensifiers (e.g., “so,” “very”), deictic phrases (e.g., “over here,” “over there”), disclaimers (e.g., “I know it sounds crazy, but . . . ”), polite forms and hypercorrect grammar, tag questions, and declarative utterances with final rising intonation to powerless speakers. The absence of such characteristics in the speech of an individual constitutes the powerful speech style. Further studies (e.g., Bradac & Mulac, 1984;

Fragale, 2006; Johnson, 1987) confirm that powerless speakers frequently exhibit most of these language features compared to powerful speakers.

Functions and Perceptions

Studies across a variety of contexts conclude that the powerless speech style produces a less favorable impression on listeners than does the powerful speech style

(Smith, Siltanen, & Hosman, 1998). Speakers exhibiting the powerless speech style sound less competent (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005), less credible, less persuasive and less attractive (Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Johnson, 1987). Powerful speech produces

7 the opposite effect and conveys the impression of intelligence, confidence (Hosman &

Siltanen, 1994), and authority (Smith et al., 1998).

The powerless speech style has been associated with a low social power status of its users. According to Conley et al. (1979), individuals with a low level of education, wealth, as well as women are more likely to speak powerlessly. The concept of powerless speech style derives from the Lakoff’s (1973) analysis of “women’s language.” It included questioning forms that make a speaker sound more polite, less assertive, less committed to the statement. Tag questions and statements uttered with the final rising intonation, typical of yes/no questions are frequently listed by researchers as powerless speech markers. In this respect, scholarly studies of powerless speech have given considerable attention to tag questions but not to statements with the rising intonation.

Furthermore, researchers continue to hypothesize the interrelationship between gender and power speech styles (e.g., Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). However, recent studies fail to prove a significant difference between male and female use and perception of the powerless style (e.g., Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Parton et al., 2002).

Further research on the power speech styles considers communicative context as a variable affecting the perception of powerful and powerless speech. In formal contexts, such as a courtroom or workplace, communicators’ status roles appear predetermined and easily inferred. Thus, speakers may employ relevant power speech style to conform to the listeners’ expectations (Parton et al., 2002; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). In this respect,

Fragale (2006) suggests a contingent criteria approach to power status perceptions. It states that status expectations are based on the individual’s role or task performance. That is if the task (context) requires individuals to display agentic behavior (e.g., leadership,

8 proactivity), the use of power speech style will confirm their high status and produce a positive impression. Fragale’s findings in organizational contexts indicate that when the task implies that communicators should display such qualities as communality, reciprocity, likability, good nature, high power status will be confirmed by the powerless speech style. Thus, if the context does not require a speaker to display agency, the powerless speech style will be favored over powerful speech. This conclusion contradicts the widespread assumption that power status is a characteristic of an individual and remains constant across various contexts. Since there is a controversy in the research approaches and findings, there is a need for further analysis of relationship between the perceptions of the power speech style and communicative context.

Another study examined the relationship between agentic behavior and the power speech status with regard to initiating and floor-holding behaviors (McFayden, 1997). In the experiment participants were divided into dyads of two types according to their role status: student-professor and student-student. McFayden found that neither participants’ roles not their power speech style correlated with the amount of conversation initiation

(agentic) behavior. Furthermore, agentic behavior is positively correlated with the conversational dominance (floor-holding and amount of talk). Both these tactics are considered powerful communicative behaviors. With regard to female participants, the author hypothesizes that agentic female speakers may adopt the powerless speech style to appear less threatening. On the other hand, women also can use it strategically to execute power.

9

Functions of Individual Cues

Exploring the expressions of powerlessness further, in-depth studies found that not all linguistic markers of the powerless speech style function equally. Researchers insist that it is worthwhile studying them separately from each other. Thus, hedges and hesitations are consistently rated as powerless (Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Hosman &

Siltanen, 2011; Parton et al., 2002). However, in some conditions polite forms may be more effective than the absence of powerless cues (the powerful speech style) in producing a positive impression, therefore, they cannot be regarded as completely powerless (Bradac & Mulac, 1984).

Similarly, Blankenship and Craig (2007) found conflicting results with regard to tag questions in different conditions of speakers’ credibility. When the source’s credibility is low, tag questions amplify the impression of powerlessness and uncertainty of the speaker. However, in the condition when the source’s credibility is high and the arguments are strong, tag questions facilitate the processing of a message, and confirm the impression of the source’s powerful status. With regard to the message perceptions,

Blankenship and Holtgraves (2005) found that when the message relevance was low, the use of tag questions resulted in more favorable estimations of its persuasiveness compared to a powerful message without tag questions. However, in a high relevance condition tag questions disrupt processing and entail negative evaluations of the message.

Some researchers (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005) suggest similarity between question forms, namely, tag questions and rhetorical questions. Parton et al. (2002) also generalize tag questions, polite requests, and statements with intonation similar to yes/no questions as question forms. However, empirical studies have not analyzed statements

10 with final rising tone in isolation and few included them as one of the cues to construct the powerless speech style. On another account, researchers in the field of sociolinguistics and phonetics have carried out descriptive research of the use and functions of the speech characteristic. The findings of the well-grounded linguistic analyses could inform the communication research of this powerless speech marker. This study attempts to address this gap and use the findings in linguistics to inform the study of statements with final rising intonation as a feature of the powerless speech style.

Uptalk

The intonation pattern identified by Lakoff (1973) as statements with yes/no question intonation is sometimes referred to as question intonation (Ching, 1982; Conley et al., 1979). In descriptive linguistics this phenomenon is termed as uptalk (e.g., Di

Gioachino & Jessop, 2010; Libermann, 2006; Tomlinson & Fox Tree, 2011), upspeak

(e.g., Bradford, 1997; Sando, 2009) usually in British and Canadian varieties, and high rising terminals (HRT) (e.g., McGregor & Sallyanne, 2008) or Australian Question

Intonation (AQI) (e.g., Fletcher & Harrington, 2001) in Australia and New Zealand. This study uses the term uptalk as a general term that refers to final rising tone in statements

(Warren, 2016) and often occurs in American research literature.

Definitions

Due to the variability of its descriptions, there is no agreement on definitions of uptalk (Warren, 2016). Generally, uptalk is characterized by a final rising tone in declarative sentences where a falling tone is more expected (Bradford, 1997). In his comprehensive review of the intonation phenomenon, Warren (2016) defines uptalk as “a marked rising intonation pattern found at the end of intonation units realized on

11 declarative utterances” (Chapter 1, para. 1.1). The simple final rising contour is more typical of interrogative yes/no questions (McGregor & Sallyanne, 2011). Due to the perceived similarity between uptalk and the conventional question intonation, a number of studies (Ching, 1982; Edelski, 1979; Lakoff, 1973; Linneman, 2013) and accounts in popular press (e.g., Davis, 2010; Key, 2014) equate such rising declaratives with questions. However, linguists warn against this misconception (e.g., Lieberman, 2006).

To claim that the difference exists, researchers analyze the pitch and phrase accent and boundary tone of the intonation contour as prosodic variables comprising uptalk (Pierrechumbert & Hirschberg, 1990; Sando, 2009). Thus, uptalk has a lower rise pitch compared to common yes/no question intonation (Di Gioacchino & Jessop, 2010;

Fletcher, Stirling, Mushin & Wales, 2002; Ritchart & Arvaniti, 2013; Tomlinson & Fox

Tree, 2011). Some researchers (Ritchart & Avaniti, 2013) argue that the starting pitch height may not be definitive. Rather, the rise on the final accented syllable distinguishes uptalk from a question, as it is not that steep. Pragmatists point out that the difference in the starting point is not explicit, at least in some varieties of the English language. Rather, distinction of uptalk from regular question intonation is easily understood when other contextual cues are taken into consideration (House, 2006).

Functions and Meanings

The studies in phonology contribute to the interpretation of the pragmatic functions of uptalk. Interpretation of its meaning can be informed by examining the discourse functions of intonation. One categorization proposed by House (2006) posits that intonation has three major functional orientations in discourse: orientation toward the speaker, linguistic or context orientation, and discourse construction orientation.

12

Orientation toward the speaker provides indexical information including the cues about social status, demographic characteristics as well as identity, which could be decoded from the speaker’s voice. This function also explains affective meaning, such as attitudes and emotions. Linguistic orientation coincides with the grammatical function of intonation, which helps the listener to decode the content of the utterance. Finally, the discourse orientation addresses interaction with the listener or the nature of spoken text

(e.g., semi-scripted monologue). The meanings conveyed by these intonation functions can be more or less dominant in each particular context. Moreover, these functions are realized simultaneously, which makes it challenging to distinguish specific meaning of an intonation pattern in isolation (Warren, 2016). Thus, it may explain why researchers report various, often conflicting interpretations of uptalk and its functions.

Discourse orientation. With regard to discourse construction, theoretical studies state that generally, final falling tones in the English language are proclaiming, while final rising tones have a referring function (Wells, 2006). The latter suggests one generalization of uptalk function: it presents new information as part of shared knowledge and indicates common ground in an interaction (e.g., Bradford, 1997).

According to McGregor and Palethorpe (2008), speakers may use a different choice of pitch onset (high or low) in uptalk either to add information to a shared context or to check for listener’s understanding. Moreover, uptalk intonation may signal that the utterance refers to the previously mentioned information (backward-looking function) or it can direct the listener’s attention to what the speaker intends to say next (forward- looking function) (Pierrechumbert & Hirschberg, 1990). In this respect, Tomlinson and

Fox Tree (2011) found that prolongation acts as a differentiating factor. Prolonged final

13 rise has the forward-looking effect while non-prolonged rising tone has a backward- looking function. Taking into consideration the affective function of intonation, their study shows that the prolonged rising intonation is perceived as less certain and less knowledgeable.

Another discourse function attributed to uptalk is signaling non-finality (e.g.,

House, 2006) and floor-holding (Ching, 1982). Furthermore, Ching posits that rising intonation has illocutionary force of directives and commissives. This fact suggests that the speaker is considering the listener’s reaction, and uses uptalk for controlling the listener’s attention (Wennerstrom, 2001). Libermann (2006) summarizes the discourse meanings of uptalk as connecting. The connecting function includes indication of non- finality (e.g., listing intonation), referring to a shared knowledge or eliciting a response

(similar to questions). Such discourse controlling function also enables the speaker to decrease social distance with the listener (mitigation) and direct the listener’s attention to the information of mutual interest (Bradford, 1997).

Moreover, Ching’s (1982) qualitative analysis distinguishes six discourse functions that are realized by declarative responses uttered with the rising intonation contour. Two of them, namely, topicalization and emphasis on a certain word or phrase may be considered under the category of discourse construction. Warren (2016) also groups the uptalk functions with regard to discourse orientation into the following categories: checking, seeking feedback, signaling informational structure, sharing and connecting.

Descriptive accounts also analyzed the type of text that is likely to incorporate final rising intonation on declarative utterances (Warren, 2016). Thus, uptalk mostly

14 occurs in narratives and descriptions, and it is less frequently used in opinion giving contexts. With regard to the degree of spontaneity, speakers are less likely to apply uptalk in reading tasks. As for the degree of formality, uptalk is a characteristic of informal speech (Bradford, 1997).

Linguistic or context orientation. With regard to the grammatical function of the intonation pattern, uptalk is a feature of declarative sentences. The uptalk intonation is commonly equated with that of questions. In this respect, House (2006) posits that uptalk may be interpreted as an interrogative. It is not, however, the only possible meaning.

Ching (1982) similarly concluded that uptalk may be used for assertions, and in some contexts it may indicate an apologetic request for correction. Warren (2016) summarizes the negative attributions to uptalk and states that along the rest of its functions, under some circumstances uptalk can be used by speakers to elicit clarification, confirmation or approval. For instance, in teacher-student interactions, such intonation in students’ speech may express politeness or indicate uncertainty about the answer.

Speaker orientation. Descriptive accounts based on the indexical information commonly attribute the use of final rises in declarative utterances to younger speakers and females (e.g., Bradford, 1997; Lakoff, 1973; McConnell-Ginet, 1978; Warren, 2016).

However, recent studies show that gender and age differences become less prominent in terms of uptalk usage (Ritchart & Arvaniti, 2013; Podesva, 2011; Sando, 2009).

With regard to affective cues, uptalk may signal that the speaker is reluctant to express commitment in relation to the content of the message, presumably, because the speaker is unsure of his- or herself (e.g., Lakoff, 1973; Wells, 2006). According to Ching

(1982) uptalk may also be employed by the speaker to express politeness and reference.

15

The latter may be the result of the speaker’s impression management (Lipovsky, 2006).

Thus, Podesva (2011) analyzed the speech of a health professional and concluded that the rises conveyed a nonthreatening impression and helped to create an image of a ‘caring doctor’ persona. He also noted that the speaker was not an uptalker outside of work.

McLemore (1991) found that final rising intonation was employed by senior members of sorority with the aim to engage other members. She notes that the social status of the speaker does not determine the use of uptalk, although it functions as a cue for interpretation.

Therefore, the meaning of the final rising intonation on declarative utterances cannot be considered an intrinsic characteristic of female speech or lower social status.

The discourse functions of connecting as well as guiding the focus of the listener contradict the assumption that uptalk is necessarily a prosodic expression of submissiveness or tentativeness. This fact undermines the initial suppositions that linked uptalk to femininity or lower social status, and consequently, powerless speech. Similar to the powerless speech style cues, previous research invites to analyze the functions, meanings and attitudes of uptalk within a communicative context.

Perceptions

Identification of uptalk functions allows scholars to hypothesize how listeners perceive the intonation pattern. House (2006) suggests that open-endedness of the final rising tone indicates a wider context and, therefore, allows for multiple interpretations.

According to the Relevance Theory (Wilson & Sperber, 1993), the listener always selects the meaning that is the most relevant and appropriate within the communicative context.

Given the variety of alternative meanings, mistakes in recognizing the speaker’s intent

16 are not unnatural (House, 2006). The effort required to interpret the uptalk intonation may lead to negative attitudes toward the speaker or the message. Thus, due to its perceived similarity with the question intonation, some researchers define it as a signal of uncertainty (e.g., Lakoff, 1973; Linneman, 2011), and therefore, a marker of the powerless speech style. Moreover, listeners may interpret uptalk as a question because it functions similarly to tag questions (Bradford, 1997), which is another characteristic of the powerless speech style.

Warren (2016) mentions a study by Geluykens (1987), which used an experimental design to reveal whether participants were able to distinguish between a question and a statement uttered with a final rising intonation. The findings imply that listeners tend to rely more on contextual cues in their decision regarding the type of the utterance.

Few empirical studies explored the attitudinal effect that uptalk produces on listeners (Tyler, 2015; Warren, 2016). Tyler underlined that most attitudinal accounts are impressionistic and may not be accurate in reflecting the perceptions of uptalk by general audience. In the early study of powerless language Conley et al. (1978) used a speech sample that included rising intonation contours in addition to other powerless cues.

Overall participants rated the powerless speaker more negatively with regard to intelligence and credibility. However, Warren noted that such result might be due to other powerless cues rather than uptalk alone.

In another account, Warren (2016) underlines that this intonation pattern has become a stereotype, therefore, studying the listeners’ perceptions of uptalk may appear problematic. He also attributes the negative attitude to the possible out-group

17 membership of the listeners. He posits that people who do not employ this intonation pattern frequently condemn the use of uptalk in other people’s speech. Because uptalkers themselves are in-group members, they do not experience difficulties with its interpretation, and thus, do not have negative associations with it. This assumption is supported by the study of the speech of sorority members by McLemore (1991). Her analysis of communicative behavior illustrated that younger sorority members perceived uptalk as an engaging, community-building speech pattern. Individuals in her sample could easily recover the meaning conveyed by the intonation relevant in a particular communicative context.

Given the previous research findings, the communicative context may determine the perceptions of the power speech style cues as well as uptalk. The subject matter, the characteristics of participants and their expectations of appropriate speech in an interaction play a significant role in their attitudes of interlocutors’ speech. It appears logical to suggest that the same speech pattern can induce negative impressions of a speaker in one context and neutral or even positive in another communicative situation.

Therefore, it is worthwhile studying the intonation pattern within a specific context, where the valence of the impressions of individuals’ speech may significantly affect the outcomes of the interaction. Thus, this research will focus on the context of an employment interview and the effects that the uptalk intonation in a candidate’s speech can produce on the interviewer.

Employment Interview Context

The interviewee’s speech is a significant predictor of employment interview outcomes (Einhorn, 1981; Huffcutt, Iddekinge, & Roth, 2011; Lipovsky, 2006; Parton et

18 al., 2002; Young, Beier, & Beier; 1979), especially for leadership positions (Hopper &

Williams, 1973). Lippi-Green (1997) points out that it is not unusual for employers to make initial yes/no hiring decisions based on their subconscious perceptions of job candidates, including their speech characteristics. Since intonation and other language cues may entail inferences about the speaker’s background, education, social status, ethnicity, and other characteristics, employers may give preference to participants who are more like them, and be less favorable to those who are less similar (Lippi-Green,

1997). Therefore, it is important to understand what attitudes employers may form on the basis of a candidate’s power speech style and the rising intonation and how these attitudes may affect employment interview outcomes.

Powerless Speech Style in Employment Interview Context

Researchers of power speech styles found that perceptions of a candidate’s competence and intelligence enacted through speech play a significant role in hiring decisions. Thus, the powerful and powerless speech styles may be particularly relevant for interviewee’s impression management, and may influence the interviewer’s evaluation of the candidate. However, few studies (Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Rubin &

Nelson, 1983; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985) have examined the effect of power speech styles in the context of a job interview. They found that powerful speech results in a significantly more favorable impression of job candidates. Patron et al. (2002), Rubin and

Nelson (1983), and Wiley and Eskilson (1985) confirmed that the candidates who used the powerful speech style are rated higher on employability regardless of their gender characteristics. However, women received higher ratings on social attractiveness when they used the powerless speech style (Patron et al., 2002). It must be noted that these

19 studies used hedges and hesitations to create a powerless message, and Wiley and

Eskilson (1985) also included intensifiers and tag questions.

In the qualitative analysis of success factors in interview performances, Einhorn

(1981) found the frequent use of hedges, hesitations and intensifiers in the speech of less successful candidates. While he did not refer to these language characteristics as pertaining to the powerless speech style, he noted that they convey the impression of indecisiveness, lack of confidence and lack of assertiveness.

The preference for the powerful speech style over the powerless one may be explained by the nature of the communicative situation. An employment interview is a formal context where participants have predetermined roles (Bradac & Mulac, 1984;

Rubin & Nelson, 1983). The interviewer has more control over the discourse than the interviewee (Jablin & Miller, 1990). The interviewer's questioning role warrants exercising control over introduction of topics and clarification of the obtained information. Thus, it influences the candidate’s verbal behavior. Despite the fact that the interviewees also may ask questions during the interview process, their role is yet more passive (Jablin & Miller, 1990). The occurrence of powerless cues may signal that the interviewee conforms to the expected role.

Furthermore, Wiley and Eskilson (1985) argue that the norms of the corporate context encourage speakers to produce an impression of a more powerful, competent, and competitive candidate. The powerful speech style reflects the characteristics that are stereotypical of male managerial speech (Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). With regard to gender characteristics, females may be expected to occupy subordinate positions, and thus, exhibit a more powerless style. The researchers found that female job applicants who

20 used the powerless speech style were rated more positively when the respondent was a man. This fact can be attributed to stereotypical expectations of female speech, which had been confirmed and, thus, positively evaluated by males. Female respondents, however, rated powerless female speakers more negatively compared to powerful female speakers.

The power speech styles did not produce a significant effect for male applicants. Notably, a more recent research of Patron et al. (2002) did not confirm such a relationship between participants’ sex and their perceptions of interviewees.

Loyd et al. (2010) hypothesized that in the organizational context, if individuals who exhibit the role of an expert, confirm the listeners’ expectations of their level of expertise, they appear more influential than those experts who violate the listeners’ expectations. In their experimental study researchers operationalized power status with relation to work experience and expertise and examined how it affected their ability to influence the listeners’ decision making. They found that experts who used the power speech style congruent with their status appeared more persuasive and likable even in the powerless condition. The authors underline that low status speakers were perceived more negatively if they applied the powerful speech style. Thus, the listeners’ expectations of the speakers’ status prove a significant factor in the attitude formation.

In a more detailed analysis of the powerless speech style, Bradac and Mulac

(1984) studied the effect of individual powerless markers and powerful speech style on the attitudes to job candidates. They compared how hedges, hesitations, polite forms, intensifiers, tag questions, deictic forms and powerful speech affect ratings of powerfulness and effectiveness of the interviewee. In addition, the researchers were interested in how each of the powerless markers and powerful message contributed to the

21 positive perception of the candidates if they wished to appear authoritative and sociable.

They found that the powerful and polite messages were rated significantly higher on effectiveness and power as well as the intention to sound authoritative. Moreover, the politeness condition produced the highest ratings of sociability. Therefore, the researchers confirmed that polite forms did not create a negative impression and may be as effective as the powerful speech style. It is worth mentioning that the researchers used written stimuli in their experiment.

The findings with regard to the positive perception of polite forms in an employment interview correspond with Lipovski’s (2005) argument that politeness is the crucial strategy for impression management among job candidates. In her qualitative analysis of two employment interviews, she did not focus on the power speech styles.

Yet, she coded a number of hedges and hesitations to which she referred as instances of vague language. Nevertheless, they did not significantly affect the impression that the candidate produced on the interviewer. She reasoned that the quality of the content outweighed this deficiency. On another account, the study proves that certain characteristics of powerless language in fact do appear in the speech of job candidates.

Few empirical studies utilized a real-life employment interview as a stimulus in their research on the powerless speech characteristics. Bradac and Mulac (1984) warn that the studies based on a hypothetical interview situation may not reflect the actual communicative behavior of participants. Therefore, the frequency of occurrence and the effect of the powerless speech style cues remain questionable. For their study of the effects of powerless markers on the perceptions of candidates, Rubin and Nelson (1983) performed a content analysis of an actual employment interview. As a result, they

22 excluded tag questions and statements with final rising intonation (uptalk) from further analysis of the powerless speech style due to the scarcity of their occurrence.

The reviewed literature accounts on the functions of powerless speech cues suggest that their presence in the context of a job interview generally is likely to create a negative impression of a speaker, however, this fact is not definitive for all powerless speech style features or for all organizational contexts. Despite its hypothesized status of a powerless speech marker, the studies on power speech styles did not include uptalk into their experiments, although it is plausible that uptalk does appear in the speech of job candidates. This study, however, insists that it is relevant to examine the effect of uptalk in the job interview context.

Uptalk in Employment Interview Context

Current studies of uptalk posit that it has become an increasingly widespread phenomenon (e.g., Sando, 2009). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that since Rubin and

Nelson’s (1983) research the social communicative content has changed and the uptalk prevalence will be reflected in a job interview setting.

According to Warren (2016) researchers of Australian and New Zealand English investigated the influence of uptalk (termed in their studies high rising terminal [HRT]) in candidates’ speech on the employment interview outcomes. In the initial study (Guy and Vonwiller, 1984 as cited in Warren) participants listened to one of the two versions

(with and without uptalk) of a recorded passage from a job interview with only female candidates. The messages with instances of uptalk were rated on several characteristics; specifically, the ratings were significantly lower for high-skilled job suitability, confidence and forcefulness, but at the same time, they were perceived as friendlier, more

23 attentive and more expressive. Later studies (e.g., Steele, 1996 as cited in Warren, 2016), which replicated this design, supported the results related to employability and friendliness. However, they displayed no differences in ratings with regard to confidence, forcefulness, and attentiveness. Researchers hypothesized that it can be attributed to changes in social attitudes to uptalk that occurred within ten years since the initial study.

Warren concludes that the attitudes to uptalk could be stereotypically associated with female speech.

Another finding of a more recent study of New Zealand English variety (Borgen,

2000 as cited in Warren, 2016) showed that nonnative speakers of English demonstrated more favorable perceptions of the uptalk users compared to native speakers of English.

This fact could suggest that non-native speakers did not have negative stereotypical predispositions associated with uptalk. Another explanation was that their exposure to the

English language was mainly through younger speakers who are frequently considered uptalk users. However, Warren also notes that the sample of both groups of respondents was relatively small, and thus, less generalizable especially to other English varieties.

Another available account (Kondo, 2009) considered uptalk as a powerless speech characteristic in the context of a job interview. The study used recordings of hypothetical unscripted job interviews, and the powerless messages for male and female conditions were constructed using the speech of natural uptalkers in the candidate’s role. The results summarized in a poster presentation suggest that respondents rate uptalk candidates significantly lower with regard to employability. However, the study was not published and was not available for further review. Therefore, the information available about the study does not allow deeming its conclusions as a definitive argument against uptalk use.

24

Thus, the few studies of uptalk and the powerless speech style in the job interview context suggest that the occurrence of these speech characteristics may negatively affect the ratings of candidate’s employability. The available literature contains certain limitations. The above-mentioned studies mostly reflect the situation in Australian

English twenty years ago. Warren (2016) mentioned that the tendency toward greater popularity of uptalk across different contexts and speakers was reflected in subsequent studies. Therefore, further research is necessary to show the changes in attitudes to uptalk that are likely to occur with time. Besides, the influence of uptalk on employability of the candidates remains underexplored for the American English variety.

Rationale

Aforementioned research on the power speech styles has not focused on the final rising intonation pattern. Therefore, it is not clear whether uptalk consistently functions as a powerless speech style cue. Both communication and linguistic researchers underline that the functions and interpretations of verbal and nonverbal speaking behavior depend on the context (e.g., Blankenship & Craig, 2007; House, 2006; Loyd et al., 2010;

McFadyen, 1997; McLemore, 1991; Pierrechumbert & Hirschberg, 1990; Podesva,

2011). It is necessary to study uptalk in the context of a job interview and examine whether it is perceived as a negative speech characteristic, and, thus, may add to the impression of powerless speech, or whether it affects a candidate’s image at all.

The discourse arrangement of an employment interview allows instances of uptalk to occur in candidate’s answers. The interview structure is considered an important factor for the interview validity (e.g., Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Patron et al., 2002).

Campion et al. (1997) single out the following types of questions that are most relevant

25 for a structured employment interview: situational questions, past behavioral questions, background questions, and job knowledge questions. Uptalk is frequently used to present the information that is perceived as shared or familiar to both communicators. As the candidates’ paper credentials are frequently available prior to the interview (Jablin &

Miller, 1990), employers are familiar with the background information and previous experiences of the candidate. In addition, uptalk usually appears in narrations and descriptions rather than opinion statements (Warren, 2016). These facts warrant suggesting that, contrary to earlier research (Rubin & Nelson, 1983), candidates are likely to use uptalk during an interview, especially in their answers to background and past behavioral questions as they present the information of shared knowledge. If the presence of the rising intonation appears natural and logical to both interlocutors, it may be left unnoticed by the listener, thus, creating no negative perceptions of the candidate.

On another note, a high degree of formality and prescribed roles of participants may determine the use and perceptions of uptalk. Uptalk is a regular characteristic of spontaneous and informal speech (Sando, 2009). Therefore, its abundance in the speech of a candidate may suggest that an interviewee is not well prepared. Therefore, if the speech characteristic violates prescriptive norms of the communicative situation, it may result in interviewer’s negative evaluations of the candidate (Lloyd et al., 2010).

With regard to the power status of a candidate, uptalk may signal the candidate’s adherence to the expected role. According to Lloyd et al. (2010), for speakers of a lower social status (e.g., little work experience or expertise), the use of uptalk may confirm the interviewer’s expectations. Taking into account the findings of Patrol et al. (2002) in relation to male perceptions of female powerless speech, it may be hypothesized that

26 male interviewers would not regard uptalk as a negative characteristic if the interviewee is a female. On the other hand, female speakers may use this intonation pattern to signal dominance within their social group (McLemore, 1991). Thus, uptalk may be applied strategically to execute control of the discourse in a subtle way, which may appear more appropriate in the formal interview context.

Furthermore, taking into consideration Warren’s (2016) assumption that uptalk functions as a defining characteristic of in-group membership, listeners who employ the intonation pattern themselves may perceive other uptalkers positively. Thus, they are able to interpret the speaker’s encoded meaning. Therefore, uptalk in the speech of a job candidate may seem more acceptable for females, younger listeners as well as non-native speakers of other languages for whom the rising intonation pattern sounds natural and familiar. Warren discusses a number of languages (e.g., Canadian French, Spanish,

Arabic, Japanese, and others) as well as English varieties were the rising intonation in declarative utterances is also salient. While it could imply that uptalk is becoming a universal linguistic device to convey openness and inclusion, Warren asserts that emergence of uptalk in other languages is more likely to be the consequence of English influence. Such tendency is most obvious in the regions where speakers of other languages appear in close contact with English speakers resulting in bi- or multilingual settings. Therefore, as the U.S. and global job market are becoming more diverse, it is important to take into account that in-group membership in case with uptalk may imply not only age and gender, but also ethnic and cultural background.

On another note, Patron et al. (2002) compared the evaluations of the powerless speech of job candidates provided by professionals to those provided by undergraduate

27 students. They concluded that younger listeners tended to rate interviewees more positively than did working professionals. Thus, it appears reasonable to suggest that the perception of the final rising intonation may vary across groups that are different in age and level of professional experience.

Finally, linguists (e.g., Bradford, 1997) posit that uptalk conveys mitigation and politeness. Politeness is one of the main strategies applied by job candidates to produce a favorable impression on the interviewer (Lipovski, 2005). Polite messages may be perceived as positively as the powerful speech style (Bradac & Mulac, 1984). Thus, the use of uptalk by job candidates to express politeness may be perceived positively if the interviewer manages to decode the speaker’s intent. Tag questions are another powerless speech marker that may be compared to the final rising intonation (Bradford, 1997).

Research findings (Blankenship & Craig, 2007; Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005) suggest that under certain conditions tag questions may contribute to the positive impression as effectively as the powerful speech style. Therefore, it appears plausible to suggest that uptalk is a speech characteristic, which does not necessarily induce negative impressions about the speaker, and therefore, should not be defined as an inherently powerless speech style cue.

Due to the lack of studies centered on uptalk in the employment interview context, it appears reasonable to pose several research questions (RQ). Since a number of accounts suggest that powerless speech and uptalk mostly affect the impressions of female speakers, this study is interested whether women are perceived differently due to the presence or absence of the rising intonation is their speech. The primary research question of this study is:

28

RQ1: How will female job candidates who exhibit the uptalk intonation score in terms of employability compared to female candidates who do not exhibit the uptalk intonation?

Following Patron et al. (2002), it is worthwhile examining whether the speech characteristic of a job candidate influences the evaluation of other desirable qualities, which may influence hiring decisions. In this respect, additional research questions are:

RQ2: How will female job candidates who exhibit the uptalk intonation score in terms of competence compared to female candidates who do not exhibit the uptalk intonation?

RQ3: How will female job candidates who exhibit the uptalk intonation score in terms of social attractiveness compared to female candidates who do not exhibit the uptalk intonation?

RQ4: How will female job candidates who exhibit the uptalk intonation score in terms of dynamism compared to female candidates who do not exhibit the uptalk intonation?

Finally, considering the previous studies (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014; Bradac &

Mulac, 1984; Patron et al., 2002) that found that certain demographic characteristics of participants, such as sex, age, occupation (students or working professionals) have potential to influence the evaluation of a job candidate, this study will explore whether any demographic characteristics of research participants function as mediating variables.

Participants’ characteristics under analysis are age, sex, level of education, professional experience, whether they have taken part in hiring or firing decisions, whether they are students or working professionals, whether English is their mother tongue. Additionally,

29 due to the geographical location of the current research, characterized by a bicultural composition of respondents, it appears worthwhile considering ethnicity of participants, namely, whether they are of Hispanic origin. Thus, the study will answer the following research question:

RQ5: Do demographic characteristics of participants, such as their sex, age, education level, professional experience, experience of hiring or firing, ethnicity, English proficiency, and their occupation mediate participants’ evaluation of the female job candidates who exhibit the uptalk intonation compared to female candidates who do not exhibit the uptalk intonation in terms of employability, competence, social attractiveness, and dynamism?

30

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Messages

Following Parton et al. (2002), this study used two versions of a message, which were constructed to resemble a job interview. The text, where the candidate is applying for an entry-level position at a financial institution, initially consisted of 460 words and excluded introductory interview phrases. In the original version, the authors used a 3.5- minute abstract of an interview. For the purposes of the current study, the length of the text was reduced to 330 words. As the uptalk intonation usually occurs in narrations and descriptions, the shortened version contains the questions and answers, which focus on the background and post-behavioral information of the candidate. The candidate’s answers have been slightly modified to achieve more resemblance with spoken language.

A female actor in the candidate’s role and a male actor in the role of the employer acted out the interview reading from the text. The dialogue was audio recorded at the university sound recording facility using the Audacity application, and resulting in two audio track files of approximately two minutes long.

The original version of the message did not contain powerless speech style markers and was role-played by actors using the script (see Appendix A). The powerless version was created by adding 15 instances of uptalk throughout the interview. According to the study of uptalk occurrence (McGregor, 1980 as cited in Warren, 2016), the rising

31 intonation should appear within first 47 seconds of speaking time to define the speaker as an uptalker. Taking into consideration the temporal and content aspects of uptalk occurrence, the words that were marked with the rising intonation are highlighted in bold font (see Appendix A). For the objective measurement of the final rising intonation, the recording was analyzed using the Praat software (Boersma & Weenik, 2015). The mean pitch rise in accented syllables was approximately 152 Hz, which falls into the average frequency range for uptalk rise, based on Warren’s (2016) summary of average pitch rise reported in previous research.

Participants and Procedure

One hundred and thirty five individuals took part in the study. Participants were recruited at a state southwestern university as well as at a public place in a suburban city in Southern California. Therefore, the sample consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory Human Communications Studies course and graduate students pursuing a master’s degree in the same discipline. The total number of student participants is 100. To obtain a more diverse sample of the U.S. population, 35 participants were recruited at a train station with the approval of the local city administration.

At the university, the messages were randomly distributed across the sections of a

Human Communications Studies course. Similarly, the two versions were randomly distributed to participants at the train station. Thus, each participant listened to one version of the message. The participants received and signed an informed consent form with a brief explanation of the study. They were informed that they would listen to a job interview and asked to decide whether the company should hire the candidate or not.

32

Students in each class all listened to one version of the audio played using the classroom multimedia facilities, while members of the general public were provided with a set of headphones and listened to the recording saved on a portable device. After listening to the interview, participants were requested to fill out a survey, which consisted of Likert- type 5 point semantic differential scales constructed by Parton et al. (2002) to measure perceived employability and other characteristics (see Appendix C).

The original study by Patron et al. (2002) included other desirable qualities for a potential candidate. After performing the factor analysis, the authors singled out the scales of four factors. Thus, along with employability, factors such as dynamism, social attractiveness and competence were included in the analysis. The dynamism dimension contained items, such as “talkative,” “aggressive,” “domineering.” The Cronbach’s α score was .63. The researchers noted that despite the low reliability score, this factor appeared significant for the results of their study. In the current study, reliability score for dynamism was lower. To arrive at maximum Cronbach’s α score of .504, the constituent factor “talkative” was excluded from further analysis. The social attractiveness factor included items such as “sweet,” “nice,” and “good-natured.” The reliability score in the initial research was .83. The Cronbach’s α score in the current study was .79. The competence dimension was constructed of the items “literate,” “educated,” “composed,” and “self-controlled” with Cronbach’s α score of .85. The reliability score for competence in this study was .76. The employability factor constructed by Parton et al. consisted of the following items: “intention to hire,” “confidence regarding intention to hire,” and “intention to recommend.” The interitem reliability score was .93. In this study the Cronbach’s α for employability was .92.

33

In addition, participants were asked to complete a demographic information questionnaire. Consistent with other studies on factors that influence employability

(Anderson, Klofstad, Mayew, & Vekatachalam, 2014; Patron et al., 2002), participants indicated their age, sex, ethnicity, English proficiency, level of education, years of work experience, and whether they had been involved in hiring or firing of employees.

Variables and Statistical Analysis

The independent variable is the uptalk condition (presence or absence) measured categorically. The main dependent variable is employability rating operationalized as a continuous variable. Scores on factors such as dynamism, social attractiveness, and competence are operationalized as continuous variables and are treated as dependent variables. In addition, the study included categorical variables such respondents’ sex

(male [n = 53, or 38.5%] and female [n = 83, or 61.5%]), age (younger that forty year old

[n = 110, or 81.5%] and older than forty [n = 25, or 18.5%]), level of education completed (high school [n = 57, or 42.2%], 2-year college [n = 38, or 28.1%], 4-year college [n = 21, or 15.6%], graduate school [n = 19, or 14.1%]), ethnicity (Latino/a [n =

54, or 40%] and non Latino/a [n = 81, or 60%]), English fluency (English is a mother tongue [n = 109, or 80.7%] and English is not the first language [n = 26, or 19.3%]), occupation (student [n = 100, or 74.1%] and working professional [n = 35, or 25.9%]), professional experience (no working experience [n = 22, or 16.3%], less than five years of working experience [n = 44, or 32.6%], more than five years of working experience [n

= 69, or 51.1%]) to determine whether they function as mediating variables and contribute to the differences in the participants’ responses.

34

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

A number of univariate linear analyses of variance were performed to uncover relationships between the variables. With regard to the central research question of this study, a one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the presence or absence of the uptalk intonation on employability ratings of female candidates. The results revealed no statistically significant difference at p < .05 between employability ratings in the condition where the job candidate displayed the uptalk intonation and the condition with the powerful (non-uptalk) speech of the job candidate, F(1, 133) = 1.56,

2 p = .213, ŋp = .011.

Further results correspond to three secondary research questions, which address the evaluations of other desirable qualities that a job candidate displayed. Table 1 displays the mean and standard deviation scores that refer to RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4.

Table 1. Scores of Desirable Qualities of Job Candidates with and without Uptalk Intonation

With uptalk Without uptalk Quality n M (SD) 95% CI n M (SD) 95% CI Employability 12.41 (2.69) [11.77, 13.05] 12.92 (1.98) [12.43, 13.42] Competence 17.63 (2.26) [17.10, 18.17] 18.33 (1.96) [17.84, 18.82] Social 71 64 13.62 (1.53) [13.26, 13.98] 13.70 (1.61) [13.30, 14.11] Attractiveness Dynamism 04.50 (1.67) [04.10, 04.90] 4.35 (1.71) [03.92, 04.78]

35

A one-way ANOVA was performed to answer the second research question and to show whether the presence of uptalk influenced the competence ratings of the interviewee. The difference between the scores of the female speaker with uptalk compared to the female speaker without uptalk did not reach a conventional standard of

2 statistical significance at p < .05, F(1, 133) = 3.59, p = .06, ŋp = .026. However, this result is approaching statistical significance, and it is likely that the results based on a larger sample will reveal that female candidates with uptalk are perceived less competently than speakers without uptalk.

The third research question focused on the trait social attractiveness. Statistical analysis was performed to discover whether the female candidate who displayed the uptalk intonation received different scores on social attractiveness compared to the female candidate who did not display the uptalk intonation. The results indicate that there is no statistical significant difference between the powerless and powerful messages,

2 F(1, 133) = .095, p = .758, ŋp = .000.

Finally, the fourth research question addressed participants’ perception of the candidate’s dynamism. The analysis sought to find out whether the scores of perceived dynamism of the interviewee differed in the powerful and powerless speech conditions.

The results display that the difference is not statistically significant, thus the presence of uptalk in the speech of a female job candidate does not affect the candidate’s score on

2 dynamism, F(1, 133) = .264, p = .608, ŋp = .002.

The last research question was concerned with the demographic data of the respondents and warranted performing a number of statistical tests to discover whether the demographic characteristics of participants could mediate the relationship between

36 the presence or absence of uptalk in the speech of a female job candidate and the ratings of their perceived employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism.

The first analysis related to this research question tested whether participants’ sex functioned as a mediating variable in the experiment. According to previous findings, the interaction between participants’ gender and their attitude to powerless speech style is indefinite. To test the relationship in this experiment, a 2 x 2 ANOVA with participants’ sex (male, female) and the uptalk condition (presence, absence) as between-subjects factors was performed to reveal whether male respondents rated the female job candidate significantly different on employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism compared to female respondents. The mean scores and degrees of freedom are summarized in Table 2.1. With respect to employability, the results showed neither main effect for participants’ sex, F(1, 131) = 1.89, p = .17, nor statistically significant interaction between sex and the candidate’s power speech type, F(1, 131) = .29, p = .59.

Table 2.1. Scores of Male and Female Respondents’ Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities

With uptalk Without uptalk Quality Sex n M SD n M SD M 29 11.93 2.51 23 12.69 1.74 Employability F 42 12.74 2.79 40 13.05 2.11 M 29 17.14 2.17 23 18.00 2.17 Competence F 42 17.98 2.29 40 18.51 1.83 Social M 29 13.41 1.32 23 13.48 1.59 Attractiveness F 42 13.76 1.66 40 13.83 1.62 M 29 4.45 1.59 23 5.13a 1.96 Dynamism F 42 4.54 1.75 40 3.90a 1.37 Note. Matched superscripts indicate statistically significant difference (p < .05)

37

Similarly, with respect to competence, the test results did not display a main effect for participants’ sex, F(1, 131) = 3.24, p = .74. In addition, there was no statistically significant interaction between participants’ sex and the uptalk condition,

F(1, 131) = .19, p = .67. With regard to the social attractiveness factor, male and female participants did not differ in their ratings of the female job candidates; the analysis did not reveal a significant main effect for sex, F(1, 131) = 1.57, p = .21 or a significant interaction between male or female respondents and presence or absence of the uptalk intonation, F(1, 131) = .000, p = .996.

With regard to the quality of dynamism, the two-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant interaction between the respondents’ sex and their assessment of the female job candidate with uptalk and with powerful speech style, F(1, 131) = 5.01,

2 p = .03, ŋp = .04. The univariate analysis showed that the ratings of job candidates allocated by male and female participants differed for the powerful message, which displayed no uptalk intonation. Thus, males (n = 23, M = 5.13) evaluated the powerful message higher on dynamism than did females (n = 40, M = 3.9), as shown in Figure 1.

5.5

5

4.5 Males Females 4

3.5 With uptalk Without uptalk

Figure 1. Mean dynamism scores of male and female respondents

38

The next set of analyses tested the potential status of the age factor as a variable mediating the relationship between the ratings of employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism and the type of power speech style of the message. The mean scores of participants’ ratings in both conditions are summarized in Table 2.2. With regard to employability, the data were analyzed to find out whether the respondents younger than forty years old evaluated the female candidate with the uptalk intonation (n

= 56) and without the uptalk intonation (n = 54) differently compared to those respondents who were over forty years of age (n = 15, and n = 10 respectively).

Initially, participants were grouped into four age categories with a ten-year range difference. Yet, it became obvious participants in the two age groups below forty years old produced similar results, while the two groups over forty exhibited a distinctly different pattern. Thus, the decision was made to group respondents into two age categories, which also increased sample size for each cell in the analysis. However, the results of a two-way ANOVA showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the age groups in their ratings of employability, F(1, 131) = .000, p = .998.

There was no significant interaction effect between the age of the respondents and their ratings of the two types of power speech style messages, F(1, 131) = .03, p = .86.

With regard to competence ratings, the analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect for the age factor. That is, the ratings of younger participants were significantly different compared to the competence ratings provided by participants over

2 forty, F(1, 131) = 6.86, p = 0.1, ŋp = .05. Namely, participants whose age falls into the range of 18 to 39 years old (M = 18.19) evaluated the job candidates significantly higher on competence compared to older participants (M = 16.97). However, the main effects

39 were not qualified by a significant interaction effect between participants’ age and the presence or absence of the uptalk intonation, F(1, 131) = .53, p = .467.

Table 2.2. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents Who are Younger than 40 and Over 40 Years Old

With uptalk Without uptalk Quality Age n M SD n M SD <40 56 12.43 2.69 54 12.91 1.98 Employability >40 15 12.33 2.79 10 13.00 2.05 <40 56 17.82a 2.18 54 18.57 1.73 Competence >40 15 16.93a 2.52 10 17.00 2.62 Social <40 56 13.50 1.61 54 13.81 1.55 Attractiveness >40 15 14.07 1.16 10 13.10 1.85 <40 56 4.33 1.76 54 4.25 1.67 Dynamism >40 15 5.13 1.13 10 4.90 1.85 Note. Matched superscripts indicate statistically significant difference (p < .05)

Social attractiveness was another dependent variable in the statistical test, which was performed to examine whether participants’ age could explain the variance in the scores distributed by the respondents. The results displayed no statistically significant main effects for the age factor F(1, 131) = .04, p = .83. Similarly, the interaction effect between the age and the uptalk condition did not reach the level of statistical significance at p < .05, F(1, 131) = 3.31, p = .07.

With regard to the score on dynamism, the measure of the main effects for participants’ age factor, which could explain the variance in the scores of the dependent variable, did not reach statistical significance at p < .05, F(1, 131) = 3.73, p = .056.

However, it is important to mention that the dynamism scale featured low reliability

(Cronbach’s α.504), which can increase the chance of the Type II error. Therefore, this

40 result may be interpreted as approaching statistical significance, and there is a tendency for older listeners to rate candidates higher on dynamism than for younger participants. In addition, there was no statistically significant interaction effect between the participants’ age and the type of the power speech style of the message, F(1, 131) = .04, p = .84.

According to previous findings (Patron et al., 2002), the ratings produced by students are significantly different from the ones received in the experiments that engage general public. Therefore, following the analysis of participants’ age as a potential mediating variable, it appears reasonable to report the results of the same analysis with respect to participants’ occupation determined by the location of their engagement. In this study, the two levels of the variable are university students (n = 100) and representatives of general public (n = 35). Fifty-three students and 18 representatives of general public evaluated the female job candidate who exhibited the uptalk intonation, while 47 students and 17 representatives of general public were exposed to the powerful message without the uptalk intonation. The mean scores of ratings of desirable qualities for a female job candidate produced by the two groups of participants are presented in Table 2.3.

First, a two-way ANOVA was performed to estimate whether the variance in the scores of employability could be attributed to the participants’ occupation or the interaction between participants’ occupation and the power speech style condition of the message that they were exposed to. The results indicated no statistical significance either in terms of the main effect between two groups, F(1, 131) = 1.73, p = .19, or the interaction effect between the factors, F(1, 131) = .179, p = .67.

41

Table 2.3. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by University Students and Members of General Public

With uptalk Without uptalk Quality Sample n M SD n M SD

Students 53 12.60 2.52 47 13.02 2.52 Employability Public 18 11.83 3.15 17 12.65 2.12 Students 53 17.94 2.09 47 18.43 1.80 Competence Public 18 16.72 2.56 17 18.06 2.38

Students 53 13.58 1.58 47 13.83 1.63 Social Attractiveness Public 18 13.72 1.41 17 13.35 1.54

Students 53 4.33 1.75 47 4.13 1.63 Dynamism Public 18 5.00 1.37 17 4.94 1.82

With regard to the evaluation of competence, the main effect for participants’ occupation did not reach statistical significance, F(1, 131) = 3.69, p = .057. However, the main effect for the uptalk condition appeared statistically significant, F(1, 131) = 4.84,

2 p = .03, ŋp = .036. According to this result, both students and representatives of general public evaluated the candidate with the powerful speech style higher on competence

(M = 18.33) than the candidate without the uptalk intonation (M = 17.63). However, when raw means for the levels of the independent variable (absence or presence of uptalk) were taken into account (see Table 1), the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance for the power speech style, p = .06; the difference was approaching statistical significance as it was mentioned above. In addition, the interaction effect between the two independent variables appeared not significant, F(1, 131) = 1.07, p = .30.

42

The results of the test, which included social attractiveness as the dependent variable showed that there were no statistically significant main effects for participants’ occupation, F(1, 131) = .311, p = .584. There was no statistically significant interaction between the factors, F(1, 131) = .984, p = .323.

With regard to the rating of dynamism, the analysis indicated a statistically significant main effect of the factor of participants’ occupation, F(1, 131) = 5.08, p = .03,

2 ŋp = .038. Further univariate tests showed that the representatives of general public

(M = 4.23) rated the job applicants significantly higher on dynamism compared to students (M = 4.97) regardless of the power speech style of the messages. However, the main effect was not qualified by a statistically significant interaction between the participants’ occupation and the power speech style of the message, F(1, 131) = .04, p = .835.

The following set of analyses examined whether participants’ completed level of education (high school [n = 57], two years of college [n = 38], four years of college

[n = 21], graduate school [n = 19]) mediated the relationship between participants’ ratings of the job candidates who did and who did not display the uptalk intonation. In order to increase the number of the participants who attended graduate school, the study recruited graduate students despite the fact that they have not obtained a graduate degree.

The mean scores of desirable qualities ratings of all the groups are summarized in Table

2.4. Thus, with regard to employability as the dependent variable, the 4 x 2 ANOVA revealed no main effects for the participants’ education level, F(3, 127) = 1.33, p = .27.

No interaction effect emerged between the independent factors, F(3, 127) = 2.36, p = .07.

43

With respect to the scores of competence, the results showed no statistically

2 significant main effect for the education level factor, F(3, 127) = .69, p = .56, ŋp = .016.

However, there emerged a statistically significant main effect of the power speech style

2 of the messages, F(3, 127) = 6.64, p = .01, ŋp = .05. According to the univariate analysis, participants regardless of their education level evaluated the job candidate who displayed the power speech style (M = 18.41) higher on competence than the job candidate who displayed the uptalk intonation (M = 17.38). Similar to the previous analysis where participants’ occupation was a factor, the raw mean and standard deviation scores were not significantly different in the one-way ANOVA test with the uptalk condition as the independent variable (see Table 1). Therefore, it can be concluded that the sample size in each cell is too small to show the significant difference. On another note, the interaction effect between the education level and the power speech style of the message did not reach statistical significance at p < .05, F(3, 127) = 2.49, p = .063.

In terms of social attractiveness, the analysis did not display any statistically significant main effect of participants’ level of education, F(3, 127) = .86, p = .47. No interaction effect between the independent factors of participants’ level of education and the power speech style of the messages appeared statistically significant, F(3, 127) = .48, p = .7.

Similarly, the analysis, which included the ratings of dynamism as the dependent variable, showed that participants with different level of education did not differ significantly in their evaluation of the job candidates, F(3, 127) = 1.57, p = .2. The interaction effect between the independent factors appeared to be not statistically significant, F(3, 127) = .193, p = .901.

44

Table 2.4. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents with Different Level of Education

With uptalk Without uptalk

Quality Edu. level n M SD n M SD

High school 32 13.19 2.19 25 12.96 2.26

2-y college 20 11.55 2.96 18 13.33 1.61 Employability 4-y college 11 12.73 2.28 10 12.10 2.08

Graduate 8 11.00 3.55 11 12.91 1.76

High school 32 18.38 2.14 25 17.96 2.01

2-y college 20 16.85 2.39 18 18.61 1.58 Competence 4-y college 11 17.55 1.97 10 18.80 1.55

Graduate 8 16.75 2.19 11 18.27 2.72

High school 32 13.75 1.61 25 13.56 1.89

2-y college 20 13.40 1.64 18 14.00 1.19 Social Attractiveness 4-y college 11 14.00 1.26 10 14.00 1.15

Graduate 8 13.13 1.36 11 13.27 1.90

High school 32 4.26 1.57 25 4.12 1.42

2-y college 20 4.40 1.96 18 4.41 1.91 Dynamism 4-y college 11 5.45 1.29 10 4.80 1.99

Graduate 8 4.38 1.59 11 4.36 1.86

The following set of statistical analysis included years of participants’ professional experience (no experience [n = 22], less than five years of experience [n =

44], more than five years of experience [n = 69]) as a mediating variable to examine to what extend it can explain the variance of the dependent variables. The mean scores are represented in Table 2.5.

45

The results of the 3 x 2 analyses of variance failed to reveal any statistically significant differences between the groups or interaction effects. With regard to the ratings of employability, the factor of professional experience did not produce a main effect on the dependent variable, F(2, 129) = 1.2, p = .305. There was no interaction effect between the independent factors, F(2, 129) = .873, p = .420. Similarly, with the analysis of competence as a dependent variable, the results indicated no statistically significant main effect for participants’ years of work experience, F(2, 129) = 1.49, p = .23. There was no statistically significant interaction effect between the independent factors, F(2, 129) = 2.22, p = .11. Likewise, with regard to social attractiveness, the analysis did not reveal the main effect for respondents’ professional experience,

F(2, 129) = .042, p = .96. There was also no interaction effect identified that could explain variance in the scores of social attractiveness, F(2, 129) = .539, p = .584. In terms of dynamism of the job candidates, participants with various professional experience did not produce significantly different ratings, F(2, 129) = .924, p = .4. No statistically significant interaction effect between the number of years of work experience and the power speech style type of message was found, F(2, 129) = .651, p = .523.

46

Table 2.5. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents with Different Length of Work Experience

With uptalk Without uptalk

Quality Work exper. n M SD n M SD

0 years 10 13.40 1.58 12 13.17 2.04

Employability <5 years 26 12.73 2.54 18 12.78 2.21

>5 years 35 11.89 2.98 34 12.91 1.88

0 years 10 19.10 1.29 12 18.25 1.86

Competence <5 years 26 17.54 2.37 18 17.94 2.10

>5 years 35 17.29 2.28 34 18.56 1.94

0 years 10 13.40 1.84 12 14.08 1.73 Social <5 years 26 13.58 1.53 18 13.67 1.75 Attractiveness >5 years 35 13.71 1.49 34 13.59 1.52

0 years 10 4.00 1.49 12 4.36 1.43

Dynamism <5 years 26 4.20 1.63 18 4.28 1.87

>5 years 35 4.86 1.72 34 4.38 1.74

A related characteristic that is the specific experience of taking part in hiring or firing decisions was treated as an independent variable to examine whether respondents who had hired or fired others (n = 58) differed significantly from participants who had not had such an experience (n = 77) in their evaluation of the candidate’s employability, competence, social attractiveness, and dynamism. The mean scores of participants’ ratings of the candidates with regard to desirable qualities are summarized in Table 2.6.

47

Table 2.6. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced Respondents Who Have Taken Part in Hiring/Firing Decisions and Respondents Who Never Have

With uptalk Without uptalk Quality Hired/fired n M SD n M SD Yes 30 12.73 2.45 28 12.75 1.90 Employability No 41 12.17 2.86 36 13.06 2.06 Yes 30 17.67 2.11 28 18.32 2.07 Competence No 41 17.61 2.40 36 18.33 1.90

Social Yes 30 13.77 1.52 28 13.71 1.51 Attractiveness No 41 13.51 1.55 36 13.70 1.70 Yes 30 4.80 1.47 28 4.75 1.55 Dynamism No 41 4.28 1.80 36 4.03 1.77

According to the results of the 2 x 2 ANOVA analysis with participants’ experience of hiring or firing and the uptalk condition as between-subjects factors, no statistically significant main effects emerged with regard to the employability rating of the job candidates, F(1, 131) = .096, p = .758. There was no statistically significant interaction effect between the dependent variables, F(1, 131) = 1.09, p = .3. Similarly, the analysis of competence as the dependent variable yielded no statistically significant main effect for participants’ experience in hiring and firing, F(1, 131) = .004, p = .95. The interaction effect between the presence or absence of the specific job experience, and the power speech style type of the message that participants were exposed to was not statistically significant, F(1, 131) = .009, p = .93. With regard to the scores of social attractiveness, its variance cannot be explained either by a main effect of the factor of hiring or firing experience, F(1, 131) = .25, p = .62, nor by an interaction effect between both predictor variables, F(1, 131) = .18, p = .67.

48

When factor dynamism was included in the analysis as the dependent variable, the results yielded a significant main effect for participants’ experience of taking part in

2 hiring or firing decisions, F(1, 131) = 4.53, p = .035, ŋp = .034. Specifically, respondents who had participated in the hiring and firing decisions (M = 4.78) rated the female job candidates higher on dynamism than did participants who had not had such experience

(M = 4.15) in both the uptalk and powerful message conditions. This difference, however, was not qualified by an interaction effect, F(1, 131) = .11, p = .74.

Due to the demographic characteristics of the population in the area where the study took place, the analysis also included participants’ ethnicity to examine whether respondents of Hispanic origin (n = 54) differed from other respondents (n = 81) in their evaluations of job candidates with regard to employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism. The mean scores produced by the two groups of respondents with regard to the ratings of the job candidates on the desired qualities are provided in Table 2.7.

The two-way ANOVA with the ethnicity and the power speech style type of message as between-subjects factors yielded statistically significant results with regard to employability rating. That is, there was a statistically significant main effect for the

2 ethnicity factor, F(1, 131) = 7.57, p = .007, ŋp = .055. This difference was between groups was qualified by a statistically significant interaction effect between participants’ ethnicity and the type of the message they were exposed to, F(1, 131) = 4.36, p = .039,

2 ŋp = .032. The univariate analysis showed that Latino/a participants who were exposed to the powerless message (n = 25, M = 13,68) evaluated the female job candidate higher on

49 employability compared to other respondents who rated the job candidate with the uptalk intonation (n = 46, M = 11.71) as shown in Figure 2.

Table 2.7. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Latino/a Respondents and Others

With uptalk Without uptalk

Quality Latino/a n M SD n M SD

Yes 25 13.68a 2.30 29 13.07 1.96 Employability No 46 11.72a 2.66 35 12.80 2.01

Yes 25 18.76b 1.66 29 18.41 1.82 Competence No 46 17.02b 2.32 35 18.26 2.09

Social Yes 25 13.92 1.63 29 13.93 1.49

Attractiveness No 46 13.46 1.47 35 13.51 1.70

Yes 25 4.96 2.03 29 4.00 1.56 Dynamism No 46 4.26 1.42 35 4.65 1.79

Note. Matched superscripts indicate statistically significant difference (p < .05)

14 13.5 13 12.5 Latino/a 12 NonLatino/a 11.5 11 With uptalk Without uptalk

Figure 2. Mean employability scores of Latino/a and other respondents

50

When the rating of competence was treated as the dependent variable, the analysis of variance also yielded a statistically significant main effect for participants’ ethnicity,

2 F(1, 131) = 6.84, p = .01, ŋp = .05. This difference between the two groups of participants different in their ethnicity was qualified by a statistically significant interaction effect between the demographic characteristic and the type of power speech

2 style message that they were exposed to, F(1, 131) = 4.76, p =.03, ŋp = .035. According to the results of the follow up univariate analysis, Latino/a respondents rated the candidate who displayed the uptalk intonation (n = 25, M = 18.76) higher on competence compared to other respondents in the same powerless message condition (n = 46,

M = 17.02) as shown in Figure 3.

19

18.5

18 Latino/a 17.5 NonLatino/a 17

16.5 With uptalk Without uptalk

Figure 3. Mean competence scores of Latino/a and other respondents

In terms of the scores of social attractiveness, the analysis showed that the independent factor of ethnicity did not produce any statistically significant main effect,

F(1, 131) = 2.53, p = .11. The results also did not display a statistically significant interaction between the respondents’ ethnicity and the power speech style type of

51 message, which could explain the variance in the social attractiveness scores,

F(1, 131) = .007, p = .93.

With regard to the variance in the scores of dynamism, the analysis indicated that participants’ ethnicity did not appear to produce a statistically significant main effect,

F(1, 131) = .007, p = .93. However, there was a statistically significant crossover interaction effect between the participants’ ethnicity and the power speech style displayed

2 by the female job candidate in the stimulus message, F(1, 131) = 5.09, p = .03, ŋp = .038.

That is the effect of participants’ ethnicity on their evaluation scores of the job candidate’s dynamism is opposite depending on the power speech style condition (see

Figure 4).

5.5

5

4.5 Latino/as NonLatino/as 4

3.5 With uptalk Without uptalk

Figure 4. Mean dynamism scores of Latino/a and other respondents

Finally, the analysis intended to examine whether participants for whom English is a native language (n = 109) differed significantly from the respondents whose native language is not English (n = 26) in their evaluations of employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism in both powerful and powerless speech style conditions. The mean scores are represented in Table 2.8.

52

Table 2.8. Scores of Ratings of Candidates’ Desirable Qualities Produced by Respondents for Whom English is a Native Language and for Whom English is not a Native Language

With uptalk Without uptalk Native n M SD n M SD Quality English Yes 57 12.30 2.69 52 12.98 1.88 Employability No 14 12.86 2.77 12 12.67 2.42 Yes 57 17.49 2.25 29 18.38 1.94 Competence No 14 18.21 2.33 35 18.08 2.11

Social Yes 25 13.72 1.40 29 13.58 1.56 Attractiveness No 46 13.21 2.01 35 14.25 1.76 Yes 25 4.49 1.66 29 4.39 1.71 Dynamism No 46 4.54 1.81 35 4.17 1.75

Unlike the previous findings preconditioned by the factor of participants’ ethnicity, this analysis showed that there was no statistically significant main effect of participants’ level of English fluency that could explain the variance in the ratings of employability, F(1, 131) = .06, p = .82. No significant interaction effect between participants’ language and the power speech style of the message was found, F(1, 131) =

.696, p = .406. Similarly, no main effect of respondents’ language emerged when the score of the job candidate’s competence was included in the analysis as the dependent variable, F(1, 131) = .21, p = .65. The interaction effect between the independent factors was not statistically significant, F(1, 131) = 1.21, p = .27. There was no statistically significant main effect of participants’ English fluency that could mediate the difference in scores of social attractiveness, F(1, 131) = .06, p = .807. No interaction effect between the two predictor factors appeared statistically significant, F(1, 131) = 2.96, p = .09.

53

Finally, the results of the analysis of variance with candidate’s dynamism score as the dependent variable showed that there was no statistically significant difference between participants whose native language was English compared to those for whom English was not their first language, F(1, 131) = .056, p = .814. The analysis also displayed no statistically significant interaction effect between participants’ English fluency and the type of the power speech style message, F(1, 131) = .13, p = .72.

To summarize the results of the statistical analysis with regard to the primary research question, the difference between the conditions of the message with uptalk and the message without uptalk was not statistically significant for employability as the dependent variable. With respect to the secondary research questions with the scores on competence, social attractiveness, and dynamism as the dependent variables, the difference produced by the levels of the independent variable was also not statistically significant.

In addition, it appeared reasonable to calculate the statistical power of the one- way ANOVAs that addressed the four primary research questions with the aim to determine the ability of the tests to detect statistical significance with the present sample size, and to draw relevant conclusions for future research. The statistical power for each of the four tests was calculated by means of online statistical power calculator

(“Retrospective power calculations”, n.d.). The summary of the results and statistical power of one-way ANOVAs performed for the first four research questions are presented in Table 3.1.

54

Table 3.1. Summary of One-Way ANOVA Analyses Results

Independent variable Dependent variable Statistical significance Statistical power

Employability Not sig. 24%

Competence Approaching sig. 47% Uptalk condition Social attractiveness Not sig. 5%

Dynamism Not sig. 7%

The results of ANOVAs performed to answer the fifth research question displayed a significant difference in several conditions (see Table 3.2). First, male participants evaluated the female job candidate with the powerful speech style higher on dynamism than did women. Second, participants younger than forty years old gave higher scores on competence to both job candidates compared to respondents who are over forty.

In addition, there is a tendency for older participants to give job candidates higher ratings of dynamism compared to younger participants. Third, representatives of general public also gave job candidates higher dynamism ratings, than did university students. Further, respondents who have experience of taking part in hiring or firing decisions evaluated job candidates higher on dynamism than did respondents without such experience. Finally, participants of Hispanic origin evaluated the female candidate who displayed the uptalk intonation higher on employability and competence compared to other participants. The same group of respondents regarded the speech of the female candidate with the uptalk intonation as more dynamic, while participants of non-Hispanic origin preferred the powerful speech style message in terms of the dynamism quality.

55

Table 3.2. Summary of ANOVA Analyses Results with Uptalk Condition as Independent

Variable 1

IV1 IV2 Dependent variable Statistical Significance Gender Not sig. Age Not sig. Occupation Not sig. Education level Employability Not sig. Length of work experience Not sig. Experience of hiring/firing Not sig. Sig. main effect, Ethnicity Sig. interaction effect Native English Not sig. Gender Not sig. Age Sig. main effect Occupation Not sig. Education level Not sig. Length of work experience Competence Not sig. Experience of hiring/firing Not sig. Sig. main effect, Ethnicity Sig. interaction effect Native English Not sig. Gender Not sig. Age Not sig. Occupation Not sig. Uptalk Education level Not sig. condition Length of work experience Social attractiveness Not sig. Experience of hiring/firing Not sig. Ethnicity Not sig. Native English Not sig. Gender Sig. interaction effect Age Main effect approaching sig. Occupation Main effect Education level Not sig. Dynamism Length of work experience Not sig. Experience of hiring/firing Sig. main effect Ethnicity Sig. interaction effect Native English Not sig.

56

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

The study was concerned with the effect of a prosodic feature of the powerless speech style in the context of an employment interview. Specifically, it sought to determine whether the presence of the uptalk intonation in the speech of a female job candidate could result in significantly different perception of interviewee, thus, affecting the chances of employment. In addition, the study examined whether female interviewees who display the uptalk intonation and those who do not display the uptalk intonation receive different evaluations of other desirable qualities, such as competence, social attractiveness and dynamism. Finally, the study investigated whether listeners’ characteristics such as sex, age, occupation, level of education, years of work experience, experience of taking part in hiring or firing decisions, ethnicity and English fluency may affect their evaluations of potential employees with regard to employability and other qualities. The results of the statistical analysis described in the previous chapter provide the answers to the five research questions posed in the study.

Effect of Uptalk on Perceptions of Candidates’ Employability

The primary research question inquired whether the female job candidate who exhibited the uptalk intonation would receive different rating of employability compared to the female candidate with the powerful speech style. The study found that the presence of the uptalk intonation in the speech of a job candidate did not significantly affect

57 perceptions of speaker’s employability. Namely, there is 1% chance that the presence of uptalk can affect employability of a female candidate. This finding contradicts the popular opinion promoted in the media that if an interviewee uses the rising intonation pattern, it may significantly diminish their chances of getting hired (Gross, 2015; Key,

2014; Rhoden, 2014). Such assumptions are usually grounded in the authors’ attitudinal accounts. They seem to reinforce stereotypes, which then can affect the predispositions of employers and lead to negative consequences for job candidates.

Previous attitudinal studies of the uptalk intonation in the employment context are scarce and not definitive. Warren (2016) discusses the results of the research conducted in Australia thirty and twenty years ago, which found that participants who displayed the uptalk intonation were perceived less employable especially for high-skilled positions.

Later studies conducted in the same variety of English found no difference in listeners’ perceptions of job fit and other desirable qualities between uptalkers and nonuptalkers.

The researchers (Steele as cited in Warren, 2016) concluded that with time, the intonation must have received a wider social acceptance. The current study also has not found that listeners show preference for the female candidate using the powerful speech style for a high-skilled position (banking) rather than the candidate with the uptalk intonation.

With regard to the American English variety, a more recent unpublished research by Kondo (2009) found that the speakers with the uptalk intonation (termed “high rising terminal”) were evaluated significantly lower on employability compared to the speakers with the powerful speech style. However, the messages used by Kondo were not identical in content, therefore, other variables could mediate the difference in participants’ evaluations. Taking into consideration the results of the current research, it appears

58 plausible that the uptalk intonation has become more widespread and socially accepted in the U.S., which explains why it no longer entails negative impressions of uptalk users.

The finding also problematizes the classification of the uptalk intonation as a characteristic of the powerless speech style. According to previous research (Parton et al.,

2002; Rubin & Nelson, 1983; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985), respondents found messages with powerful speech style significantly more preferable in the context of a job interview compared to powerless speech. It must be noted that the researchers constructed their messages using several powerless speech style cues excluding prosodic features. The main finding of the current study falls in line with Lipovski’s (2005) research, which concluded that despite the occurrence of certain powerless characteristics in the speech of a job candidate, the impression of the candidate’s employability is not likely to be significantly affected.

Effect of Uptalk On Perceptions of Other Desirable Qualities

Competence

The second research question sought to determine whether female job candidates who display the uptalk intonation scored differently on competence compared to job candidates who exhibit the powerful speech style. The study found that the presence of uptalk did not result in a significant difference in competence ratings. Yet, it must be noted that the difference in listeners’ perceptions depending on the presence or absence of the uptalk condition was more salient with competence than with any other factors.

The influence of the uptalk presence on the competence ratings is 2.6%. While it seems small, the tendency to rate a female speaker with the uptalk intonation as less competent

59 than the powerful female speaker is likely to appear more pronounced with a larger sample of respondents.

This finding still does not fully correspond with the results of previous studies that focused on the use of tentative language. For example, Parton et al. (2002) demonstrated that powerless speakers received significantly lower competence ratings in an employment interview context. Similarly, the study by Carli (1990) found that women who used tentative language were perceived less competent compared to women using an assertive speech style. Furthermore, this finding differs from the conclusion made in the study about another notoriously negative prosodic feature termed “vocal fry” (Anderson et al., 2014). According to their research, the presence of vocal fry in the speech of job candidates negatively affected their perceived competence. It can be concluded that the presence of the uptalk intonation does not bear as negative evaluations of employability and competence in contrast to those resulting from the powerless speech style or other stigmatized nonverbal cues, yet it can affect evaluation of competence.

Social Attractiveness

The third research question sought to find out whether the presence or absence of the uptalk intonation significantly affected perceptions of speakers’ social attractiveness.

The study found that the positive impression of a female interviewee was not significantly affected even if she used uptalk. According to the literature, social attractiveness is usually attributed to the powerful speech style (Anderson et al., 2014;

Parton et al., 2002). This study did not support this assumption. Moreover, Parton et al.

(2002) found that female speakers who exhibited the powerless speech style were perceived as more socially attractive compared to women who displayed the powerful

60 speech style. The current experiment, which used female messages only, did not produce evidence to support those findings.

With regard to the uptalk intonation specifically, the literature suggests that it may convey the sense of mitigation and politeness, thus, functioning as an impression management technique (Ching, 1982; Lipovsky, 2006; Podesva, 2011). According to

Warren (2016) the studies conducted in Australian English showed that the users of uptalk appeared friendlier to listeners. However, the present study did not display any support for the assumption that the presence of the uptalk intonation increases evaluations of social attractiveness.

Dynamism

The fourth research question asked if job candidates who displayed the uptalk intonation and job candidates who did not display the uptalk intonation elicited different impressions of dynamism. The study found that evaluations of dynamism were not affected by a speaker’s power speech style. It is important to mention that due to a low reliability score of the dynamism scale, the item “talkative” was excluded from the analysis, leaving only evaluations on the items “aggressive” and “domineering.” Thus, the dynamism characteristic is more likely to be an attribute of powerful speech style.

However, the results from the previous research (Parton et al., 2002) were not definitive with regard to the relationship between the power speech style exhibited by speakers and their scores on dynamism. The current study concludes that the powerful speech style of a job candidate does not result in a higher evaluation of dynamism. An alternative explanation of the finding supports the general claim that the uptalk intonation is not a powerless speech style cue, thus, it does not significantly alter a powerful message.

61

Effect of Respondents’ Characteristics on Perceptions of Candidates’

Employability and Other Qualities

The fifth research question sought to investigate how participants’ demographic characteristics might affect evaluations of job candidates’ employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism in both power and powerless speech style conditions.

This question was posed because previous research had hypothesized and found the relationship between participants’ sex, age, occupation, work experience, English fluency and their attitudes to different power speech styles.

Gender

Researchers continue to investigate the connection between gender and power speech style, however, their results are not homogeneous and not conclusive (Parton et al., 2002). For example, research on powerless speech (Anderson et al., 2014; Parton et al., 2002; Wiley & Eskilson, 1985) did not find any significant difference in ratings of the powerless speech style in terms of employability produced by male and female respondents.

With regard to the ratings of social attractiveness, the current study also did not find any difference between perceptions of male and female listeners. This finding contradicts the conclusion advanced by Carli (1990) that female respondents deem women using powerless speech style less likable compared to women who speak assertively. With regard to uptalk in particular, the study does not provide support for the assumption that it is an inherently female speech characteristic, which could suggest in- group acceptance of it by other female uptalk users. Therefore, one explanation of the absence of disagreement between men and women in terms of their ratings of the uptalk

62 intonation is that it is losing its exclusivity as a female speech characteristic (Ritchart &

Arvaniti, 2013) and, is equally accepted among both men and women.

With regard to the dynamism score, the only difference between the male and female respondents was in their evaluation of the female candidate who did not exhibit the uptalk intonation. Men perceived the female powerful speech style message as significantly more aggressive and domineering than did women. This finding appears unexpected and it could be attributed to the assumption that men perceive the powerful speech style used by a female speaker as unusually assertive, while women perceived the powerful female candidate as neutral or not particularly aggressive and domineering.

However, it is worth mentioning that the difference between the scores is not large and accounts for 4% of the variance in the dynamism scores.

Age

Since the uptalk intonation is often considered a characteristic of younger speakers, this fact warranted the inquiry whether the age of the respondents could affect their evaluations of the female job candidates with different speech styles distinguished by the presence or absence of the uptalk intonation. According to the current analysis, participants whose age is under 39 years old did not differ from participants who were over 40 in their evaluations of the candidate’s employability, social attractiveness or dynamism regardless of the power speech style of the messages. However, younger participants considered female candidates in both conditions more competent than did older participants. It is not clear why older individuals were more critical in their evaluations of competence; it must be noted, however, that this difference accounts for only 5% of variance in the scores. Moreover, the number of older respondents is

63 relatively small compared to the number of younger participants, which may explain the lack of evidence of the relationship between participants’ age and the ratings of specific power speech style.

Another conclusion that may be drawn from the results of the study suggests that older respondents tend to evaluate female speakers higher on dynamism in contrast with younger listeners. The difference in perceptions may be attributed to the social changes that lead to higher acceptance of women in a business setting. Thus, for the younger population neither powerful speech style nor the uptalk intonation of a female job candidate appeared particularly aggressive or domineering.

Occupation

Since the study focuses on job interview outcomes, it was important to ensure that the scores produced by respondents represent the attitudes of working professionals who make employment decisions (Anderson et al., 2014). Thus, Parton et al. (2002) argued that a convenient sample of university students was not suitable for evaluations of job candidates because they appeared to display more favorable impressions of speakers, even in the powerless speech style condition. Notably, the results of the current study suggest that the evaluations provided by university students could be generalizable to the general working population in terms of the candidates’ employability, competence and social attractiveness.

Another relevant finding of the study is that representatives of general public perceived female candidates in both conditions as more aggressive and domineering

(dynamism quality) than did university students. Remarkably, it appears contradictory to the previous research (Parton et al., 2002), which found that university students evaluated

64 candidates’ dynamism higher than did working professionals. While the cause of this difference is not obvious, it is worthwhile noting that the nonstudent sample size used in the current study may be too small, and it produced the difference that accounted for

3.8% of the variance in the dynamism scores.

Education Level

In addition the study investigated whether participants’ with different levels of education could evaluate of female job candidates differently depending on the power speech style. Participants’ education level did not account for the differences in perceptions of candidates’ employability, social attractiveness and dynamism. However, with regard to competence, respondents preferred the powerful message compared to the one where the uptalk intonation was present. This difference was not pronounced when the analysis made no distinction between participants’ education levels. This controversy may be a result of small sample sizes in each group, therefore, this fact cautions against generalizing the results to larger populations.

Work Experience

Following the research on listeners’ evaluations of job candidates’ speech

(Anderson et al., 2014), the current study examined whether the length of employment and participation in hiring or firing decisions could appear a significant mediating factor.

Interestingly, the length of job experience (considering the absence of any employment experience) did not matter in the respondents’ evaluations of employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism. Following the assumption of Anderson et al., the presence of the hiring or firing experience may also indirectly indicate the power status of the respondent (e.g., manager), which could result in preference for the powerful speech

65 style. Results of the previous study indicate that the respondents’ professional status does not predict any preference with regard to employability, competence, and social attractiveness evaluations based on the speech of job candidates. The current study supports this conclusion. However, the present experiment showed that the respondents who had had experience of hiring or firing employees gave the job candidates higher scores on dynamism compared to those respondents who had never hired or fired others.

This finding appears contradictory to the conclusion made by Parton et al. (2002) who stated that recruiting professionals tended to evaluate participants lower on dynamism compared to a convenience sample comprised of students.

Native English

Finally, the research question focused on the participants’ ethnicity and native language in order to determine whether these characteristics influence listeners’ perceptions. With regard to language proficiency, the study sought to find out whether native speakers of English evaluated the interviewees differently compared to the respondents whose native language is not English.

Unlike the findings of Borgen (as cited in Warren, 2016), the current study found no preference exhibited by either native or nonnative English speakers of the female candidate with the powerful speech style or with the uptalk intonation. This fact may suggest that speakers of English regardless of their language fluency have gotten accustomed to the uptalk intonation as a common feature of spoken English so that it does not appear striking, unnatural or negative. Furthermore, according to Warren (2016), the rising intonation has become prominent in other languages. While the origin of this phenomenon is unclear – it could be the global influence of the English language or a

66 universal prosodic marker of openness, - the fact that it is becoming more commonplace suggests its growing acceptance among listeners.

Ethnicity

Unlike language fluency, listeners’ ethnicity appears to produce a more complex effect on evaluations of speakers with different power speech style, differentiated by the uptalk intonation in this experiment. Previous studies of powerless and powerful language use did not directly discuss ethnicity as a distinguishing factor, although they mentioned socio-economic status as one of the predictors of powerless language use.

Warren (2016) posits that ethnicity is frequently confounded with the socio-economic status, and both characteristics could determine the use of and attitudes to the uptalk intonation in English speaking countries, especially, in the U.S.

Notably, the study revealed an unexpected relationship between participants’

Hispanic origin and their evaluations of female candidates’ employability, competence, and dynamism. Participants who identified themselves as Latino/a considered the job candidate who exhibited the uptalk intonation more employable in contrast with participants of other ethnic origin (unspecified). Respondents did not differ in their impressions of the candidate who displayed the powerful speech style. This finding suggests that there is 3.2% chance that Latino/a recruiter is more likely to hire a candidate with the uptalk intonation.

Similarly, participants of Hispanic origin regarded the female candidate who displayed the uptalk intonation more competent, which reinforces the above-mentioned finding about employability. Furthermore, in 3.5% of cases, the listener of Hispanic origin would regard a user of uptalk more aggressive and domineering while, at the same

67 time, a listener who is not Latino/a is likely to rate such a job candidate lower on dynamism. At the same time, Latino/a respondents consider a powerful speaker less aggressive and domineering while other respondents have an opposite impression.

Despite these findings on the three desirable dimensions for a job candidate, the study did not reflect more favorable impressions of Latino/a respondents with regard to social attractiveness of the interviewees. In fact, both groups of respondents regarded the candidate who displayed the uptalk intonation as attractive as the candidate who used the powerful speech style. As it was noted earlier, the uptalk intonation does not appear to make a difference for listeners’ evaluations of social attractiveness.

Latino/as’ preference for the powerless speech constituted by uptalk has not been explicated in previous research on the power speech styles in general or the uptalk intonation in particular. Nevertheless, social linguistic research may provide ground for suggestions that could explain the results found in the current study.

Assumptions of the pragmatic functions of uptalk warrant making a claim that the rising intonation pattern appeals as useful to immigrants of non-English backgrounds due to their need for checking listener’s understanding and expressing uncertainty in interactions with native speakers (McGregor, 1980; Warren, 2016). Although this hypothesis was expressed and later tested for the Australian English variety, it is reasonable to suggest that a similar tendency may be present in other English-speaking counties, where immigrant population of non-English origin attempts to assimilate with the dominant culture. This position reinforces the claim that the uptalk intonation conveys the meaning of social inclusion and in-group membership.

68

Thus, several research accounts of other English varieties (e.g., British English) note that the presence of the rising intonation is more pronounced in population of adolescents of Chinese origin who are more associated with the upwardly mobile young professionals (“yuppie”) compared to less advantaged Bangladeshi adolescents

(Pennington, Lau, & Sachdev, 2011). McGregor (1980) also linked the higher frequency of the uptalk instances in the speech of school children and their immigrant origin.

However, this fact does not suggest a connection with the lower class as it was hypothesized before (Conley et al., 1979; O’Barr & Atkins, 1980). In fact, more recent research determines that the rising intonation contours are more commonly used among representatives of the middle rather than lower or working class.

Taking into consideration the results of the current experiment and the aforementioned arguments, it appears plausible to suggest that the Hispanic population in the United States has unique attributions regarding the rising intonation contours, which may be due to their familiarity with the prosodic feature. Several accounts (e.g., Field,

2011; Lippi-Green, 1997; Penfield, & Ornstein-Galicia, 1985) suggest that there has been mutual influence of the English and Spanish languages. As an example, linguists mention the phenomenon of Chicano English, which is an English dialect that emerged in the

Southwest of the U.S. where the Spanish and English speakers appeared to have more contact.

According to Field (2011), speakers of Chicano English are usually monolinguals.

Their English is different from the Standard American variant and may be heavily influenced by Spanish, yet their Spanish proficiency may be minimal or absent. Chicano

English speakers learn the language though borrowings and code-switching between the

69 two languages. Penfield and Ornstein-Galicia (1985) note that the process of assimilation with the Standard American English illuminates the prominent features of the Chicano dialect.

This dialect is of interest because one of its distinctive features is rising glides at the end of declarative phrases in place of a falling tone as in Standard American English

(Field, 2011; Penfield, & Ornstein-Galicia, 1985). Field’s description of such intonation pattern is similar to that of uptalk found in studies of other English varieties: it makes a sentence sound like a question, conveys lack of certainty and commitment. Chicano

English speakers may use the rising glide to add emphasis to a particular word or phrase as well as to convey politeness. However, scholars note that employing this pattern may lead to misinterpretation on behalf of the speakers of Standard American English.

Thus, the aforementioned prosodic pattern appears similar to the uptalk intonation, which was thought to induce negative evaluations among Standard American

English speakers. However, if it conveys a contrary meaning, (e.g., expressiveness) for the speakers of Chicano English, this can explain the higher estimations of dynamism given to the job candidate with the uptalk intonation by Hispanic respondents.

On another note, some scholars attribute the rising intonation in speech of

Hispanics to the influence of “Californian intonation,” especially among younger speakers (Fought as cited in Warren, 2016). Furthermore, in an extensive ethnographic account of the Spanish speech in the area that borders with the U.S., Mendoza (2011) discusses sociolinguistic identity markers that are prominent in the Hispanic community.

In her dissertation, she mentions linguistic features that comprise a stereotypical portrayal of a social group identified as fresas. Fresas are considered to be young privileged

70 representatives of upper class or those who exhibit preference for American lifestyle.

Mendoza notes that the image usually applies to young skinny women with pale skin who also wish to create an impression of possessing high social status and being well educated by making use of certain distinctive attributes and language patterns.

According to Mendoza (2011), the use of rising intonation patterns similar to the uptalk intonation, found in the American English variety, is the most distinctive linguistic index of the fresa identity. Other linguistic attributes (such as lexical borrowings) derive from the American English. Thus, adoption of rising intonation signals the desire for inclusion and association with liberalism, superiority and high social status (Mendoza,

2011). However, it must be noted that with regard to social perceptions of fresas’ speech, it has become a cultural stereotype that also portrays an image of an arrogant and snobbish young female commonly mocked in popular media.

Yet, Mendoza (2011) points out that the fresa culture conveys the notion of commoditized identities fit for the business setting. As a highly-gendered speech pattern, it appears functional and allows using “language as an asset for women in the heteronormative market” (Mendoza, 2011, p. 224). The adoption of the fresa pattern of identity facilitates assimilation with the globalized western community. She concludes that this “is a highly desired identity and at the same time despised” (Mendoza, 2011, p.

224). This fact may explain why Hispanic respondents in the current study thought that job candidates who displayed the uptalk intonation were more competent and more employable but they did not favor the uptalk speaker when they evaluated her on social attractiveness.

71

Thus, it can be concluded that there is a tendency to encounter a rising intonation contour in the speech of Hispanic community (living in Mexico or in the U.S.), which conveys connectivity with the American language and culture. The pattern appears to be common and widespread among the Hispanic population and it may signal that the speaker possess certain personality characteristics that are considered suitable for the business environment in the U.S. Thus, the finding of this study seems understandable.

Implications

The results of the study indicate that the presence of the uptalk intonation does not result in significantly different evaluations of employability, competence, social attractiveness and dynamism compared to the powerful style for female job candidates.

Thus, contrary to popular assumption, the uptalk intonation is unlikely to diminish women’s chances of getting employed. This is an important implication that argues against a stereotypical impression that uptalk is a female speech characteristic that makes a woman sound incompetent, tentative and powerless. As it was previously mentioned, it is likely that uptalk has become commonplace and acceptable in the speech of both sexes, and therefore, it no longer triggers stereotypical impressions. The reason for this may be due to social changes that have occurred in the last decade in the U.S. This assumption is supported by recent research on the uptalk intonation (e.g., Ritchart & Arvaniti, 2014) that suggested that it has transcended its status of a distinctive linguistic feature exclusively associated with young female speakers. Moreover, it seems plausible that the concept of what constitutes appropriate leadership talk in the business environment is also shifting (Fragale, 2006; Morand, 2014).

72

Furthermore, this conclusion problematizes the categorization of the rising intonation contour in declarative phrases as a feature of the powerless speech style or woman’s language. The results of the current study did not fully support the findings of the previous research on power speech styles in the context of a job interview. Hence, it can be suggested that the uptalk intonation does not function as a powerless speech style cue or this feature alone does not entail as negative impressions as those associated with powerless language. Since the rising intonation contour may imply various meanings depending on the context, it is likely that listeners understand speakers’ intentions and interpret them accordingly. Thus, if a speaker displays an otherwise assertive speaking style, the presence of uptalk is unlikely to alter the positive impression.

With regard to secondary research questions, the results revealed a distinct pattern across the scores of dynamism. If respondents were representatives of general public recruited outside of the university campus, if they were older than forty years old, if they had previous experience of hiring or firing employees, then they were more likely to regard job candidates as more aggressive and domineering. Also men evaluated the powerful female speaker higher on dynamism than did women. This tendency may also be connected with changing expectations of female speech in a business setting.

University students, younger participants, and those with less management power in the organization may perceive the female speaker in the role of a job candidate as neutral while the above mentioned groups of respondents may be more receptive in their reaction to the female speech in a business context. Arguably, the low reliability of the questions comprising the dynamism factor in this study makes their value doubtful for the research in organizational communication. It is difficult to estimate whether aggressiveness,

73 dominance and talkativeness (as it appeared in the questionnaire) are truly desirable characteristics, especially for a female job candidate.

Finally, the study found that respondents of Hispanic origin were more likely to regard a speaker with the uptalk intonation as more employable, competent and dynamic.

This finding appears novel, and therefore, important because to the knowledge of the author, the attitudinal perceptions of Latino/a individuals in professional setting have not been explored. Yet, the population of Hispanic origin is becoming a significant part of the

U.S. workforce (United States Department of Labor, 2015), especially in the Southeast of the country. This paper provided explanatory assumptions for this finding; however, further in-depth research is required to understand the relationship between ethnicity and the attitudes to speech styles as well as specific nonverbal cues.

Limitations

The generalizability of the study is restricted due to a number of limitations of the research. The primary limitation concerns the construction of stimuli messages. As it was previously discussed, enacting prosodic cues in an artificial setting may be problematic.

Nevertheless, the decision to use an artificially constructed and previously tested text of job interview as well as to employ the same actors for the recording of vocal stimuli was guided by the need to create conditions of a controlled experiment, prevent covariance, and ensure reliability. If the stimuli were created from naturally occurring speech, the task of isolation the uptalk intonation from other powerless speech cues would be hardly possible. Thus, the utilization of artificially constructed excerpts of an employment interview was not ideal, however, it was conscious and acceptable.

74

More important, the two messages used in the study were recorded separately from each other. In this case, controlling only for the appearance of uptalk and holding other nonverbal cues constant was challenging. Therefore, unintended linguistic cues could account for the difference in respondents’ evaluations. Utilization of several sets of messages with the presence of uptalk as the distinguishing factor could increase reliability of the stimuli. Moreover, the use of only one voice for the candidate’s role for stimuli construction also can impair generalizing of the findings. The impressions of the speaker could be attributed to individual vocal features of the actor. Therefore, the messages recorded by different actors in the same roles could ensure that the difference in respondents’ evaluations is attributed to the prosodic manipulation rather than speakers’ individual characteristics.

Suggestions for Future Research

There is a need for further in-depth analysis of the perceptions of the uptalk intonation. There is little research available that has explored how listeners perceive the uptalk intonation, and the current study contributes to this topic. The rising intonation pattern is spreading rapidly transcending gender, age, social status and situational contexts. Therefore, it is valuable to understand the implications of such tendency, especially in the employment and other formal contexts. Further research will be beneficial to strengthen the argument against stigmatization of female uptalk users that is currently thriving due to accounts in the media. The lack of negative perceptions of female speakers with the uptalk intonation displayed by the findings of this study is not consistent with previous research performed in the fields of linguistics and power speech

75 styles. Hence, future studies will be able to confirm or challenge conclusions of the current research.

Moreover, future research should explore perceptions of male job candidates who exhibit the uptalk intonation to determine if men are treated differently than women in this respect. Including male speakers in constructions of the stimuli messages will help to understand the role between listeners’ and speakers’ gender characteristics in the employment decision-making. Thus, future research will be able to confirm or dismiss the stigmatized status of uptalk as a female speech or powerless speech style characteristic. Also in order to ensure generalizability of the results, researchers should attempt to recruit larger and more diverse sample including professionals working in recruitment.

Furthermore, the mediating role of the listeners’ ethnicity, namely, Hispanic origin, in their evaluations of the rising speech pattern revealed in this study needs further exploration. This study has speculated about potential causes of this phenomenon, yet, it is obvious that more extensive expert explanation is required. With the growing number of Hispanic population and its influence on the U.S. labor market, understanding cultural differences and their implications is crucial for achieving the state of diversity and equal opportunities in professional environment. Confirming the preference of Latino/a listeners for the uptalk speakers may help create a greater awareness in the process of employment decision-making. Thus, the value of the contribution of this study to fair employee selection practices is hardly disputable.

76

Conclusion

The study has explored the effect of the uptalk intonation in the speech of a female job candidate on employment interview outcomes. Based on the available literature in linguistics and communication research, the inferences about the possible influence of the intonation pattern informed a number of research questions. The main finding of the study disputes the popular conception that uptalk necessarily results in negative impressions of female speakers or may impair their employability. Therefore, a common suggestion proposed is to avoid speaking with the intonation pattern that proves futile and stigmatizing. This study, however, has shown that while uptalk may make a difference in listeners’ perceptions of speakers, this difference is not crucial.

The unexpected finding of the study is that listeners of Hispanic origin display a more favorable attitude to the female candidate with the uptalk intonation. The nature of such relationship is not determined, and it proves an important implication and direction for future inquiry for working professionals as well as academic researchers.

77

APPENDIX A

EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW

Employer: How did you get interested in banking? Interviewee: Four years ago, when I was a senior in college, I had an internship with a bank, and more recently I’ve been in charge of negotiating with a bank about a loan for the company I currently work for. So banking seems like a complex and demanding career. Employer: How did you learn about Illinois Trust? Interviewee: I’m from this area, so I’ve known about you for as long as I can remember. As a child I used to hear your commercials on the radio. I learned about your management-training program through an article in the Tribune. Employer: Where do you see yourself fitting into the organization? Interviewee: Frankly, I’d like to work in commercial lending. I’ve always wanted this type of responsibility, the challenge of dealing with large accounts, and the decision- making involved in dealing with corporations. Employer: What skills or background do you have that recommend you for that kind of position? Interviewee: In college, I was an economics major. I took some accounting and a couple of statistics courses. I was also in debate, which taught me how to present a logical argument. In my present job, I’ve had to handle a number of financial negotiations. All of these experiences, plus my interest in this work will help me handle the demands of such a position. Employer: How would you describe your strengths and weaknesses? Interviewee: I’m a very hard worker, I’m organized, and I like to succeed. I’m a compulsive worker, so I do tend to do too much at times. I find it hard to say no to an interesting project or to people who come to me with problems. Employer: What are the factors that motivate you? Interviewee: I like to be busy. I like to be stimulated. I seem to get more work done when I’m busy than when there’s plenty of time. It’s crazy, but true. I’m also motivated by the chance to grow, so I take on as much responsibility as I can handle.

78

APPENDIX B

EMPLOYABILITY RATING SCALE

Place one “X” on each of the items according to your reaction to the interviewee’s responses. For example, if you thought that the interviewee sounded very polite, please indicate it in the following manner: Polite _X_:___:___:___:___ Impolite. If you thought that the interviewee sounded somewhat more cheerful than sad, please indicate it in the following manner: Cheerful ___:_X_:___:___:___ Sad. Remember, the “X” should fall on a line and not on top of a colon. Respond carefully but quickly. Be sure to answer each question! The interviewee seemed: 1. Nice _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Awful 2. Talkative _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Shy 3. Aggressive _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Unagressive 4. Domineering _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Agreeable 5. Pleasant _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Unpleasant 6. Good-natured _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Hostile 7. Literate _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Illiterate 8. Educated _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Uneducated 9. Composed _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Unplanned 10. Self-controlled _____:_____:_____:_____:____ Not self-controlled

On the next set of scales, place an “X” on each item to indicate your evaluation of the interviewee. 1. I would hire the interviewee. _____:_____:_____:_____:_____ I would NOT hire interviewee. 2. I am confident I would hire I am NOT confident I would hire _____:_____:_____:_____:_____ the interviewee. the interviewee. 3. I would recommend the I would NOT recommend the _____:_____:_____:_____:_____ interviewee for a job. interviewee for a job.

79

APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONAIRE

1. What is your age? o 18‐29 o 30‐39 o 40‐49 o 50 and older

2. What is your gender? o Male o Female

3. Are you Mexican, Mexican‐American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Cuban‐ American, or some other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group? o Yes o No, I am not Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino

4. Is English your native language? o Yes o No

5. What is the highest level of education you have completed? o High School / GED o 2‐year College Degree o 4‐year College Degree o Masters Degree o Doctoral Degree o Professional Degree (JD, MD)

6. Which option best indicates your employment experience? o No employment experience o Less than 5 years of employment experience o More than 5 years of employment experience

7. Have you ever been involved in hiring or firing decisions? o Yes o No

80

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C., Klofstad, C. A., Mayew, W. J., & Vekatachalam, M. (2014). Vocal fry may undermine the success of young women in the labour market. PLoS One, 9(5), e97506. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097506.

Blankenship, K. L., & Craig, T. (2007). Language and persuasion: Tag questions as powerless speech or as interpreted in context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 112-118.

Blankenship, K. L., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3-24. doi: 10.1177/0261927X04273034

Bradac, J., & Mulac, A. (1984). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs, 51(4), 307-319. doi: 10.1080/03637758409390204

Bradford, B. (1997). Upspeak in British English. In B. S. Collins & I. M. Mess (Eds.), Practical Phonetics and Phonology: A Resource Book for Students, (pp. 274- 279). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-398.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (1995). Introduction: Twenty years after Language and woman’s place. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. (1995). New York, NY: Routledge.

Campion, M., Palmer, D., & Campion, J. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lib- proxy.fullerton.edu/docview/220138496?accountid=9840

Ching, M. K. L. (1982). The question intonation in assertions. American Speech, 57(2), 95-107. doi: 10.2307/454443

81

Clark, B. (2012). The relevance of tones: Prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. The Linguistic Review, 29(4), 643-661. doi: 10.151/tlr- 2012-0024

Conley, J., O'Barr, W., & Lind, E. (1979). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 1978(6), 1375-1399. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372218

Davis, H. (2010, October 06). The uptalk epidemic. Can you say something without turning it into a question? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/caveman-logic/201010/the-uptalk- epidemic

Di Gioacchino, M., & Jessop, L. C. (2010). Uptalk: Towards a quantitative analysis. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 33. Retrieved from http://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6892/12209

Edelsky, C. (1979). Question intonation and sex roles. Language in Society, 8(1), 15-32.

Einhorn, L. J. (1981). An inner view of the job interview: An investigation of successful communicative behaviors. Communication Education, 30, 217-228.

Field, F. (2011). Biligualism in the USA: The case of the Chicano-Latino community. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.44

Fletcher, J., Stirling, L., Mushin, I., & Wales, R. (2002). Intonational rises and dialog acts in the Australian English map task. Language and Speech, 45(3), 229-253. doi: 10.1177/00238309020450030201

Fragale, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 243–261. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.004

Geluykens, R. (1987). Intonation and speech act type: An experimental approach to rising intonation in queclaratives. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Monthly of Language Studies, 11(4), 483-494.

Gross, T. (2015, July 23). From upspeak to vocal fry: Are we ‘policing’ young women’s voices? Fresh Air [Podcast transcript]. Retrieved from NPR website http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=425608745

Hess, K. (2013). Investigation of nonverbal discrimination against women in simulated initial job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 544-555. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01034.x

82

Hollander, J., & Gordon, H. (2006). The processes of social construction in talk. Symbolic Interaction, 29(2), 183-212. doi: 10.1525/si.2006.29.2.183

Hopper, R., & Williams, F. (1973). Speech characteristics and employability. Speech Monographs, 40, 296-302.

Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language forms. Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 33-46. doi: 10.1177/0261927X05284477

House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1542-1558. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.005

Huffcutt, A., Iddekinge, C., & Roth, P. (2011). Understanding applicant behavior in employment interviews: A theoretical model of interviewee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 353-367. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.05.003

Jablin, F. M., & Miller, V. D. (1990). Interviewer and applicant questioning behavior in an employment interview. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(1), 51-86.

Johnson, C. E. (1987). An introduction to powerful and powerless talk in the classroom. Communication Education, 36(2), 167-172.

Kellner, B. Z. (2005). Speech prosody, voice quality and personality. Logaoedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 30, 72-78. doi: 10.1080/14015430500256543

Key, H. (2013). Speak for Yourself: Talk to Impress, Influence and Make an Impact. New York, NY: Pearson.

Kondo, A. (2009, April). High Rising Terminal (HRT) in job interviews and impact on employability: HRT as a positive interactional strategy and reconsideration of categorization of powerful vs. powerless language. Poster session presented at “Vox California,” UC Santa Barbara, CA.

Lakoff, R. T. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-79.

Liberman, M. (2006, February 11). Angry rises. [Web log entry]. Retrieved from http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002823.html

Linneman, J. T. (2013). Gender in Jeopardy!: Intonation variation on a television game show. Gender & Society, 37(1), 82-105. doi: 10.1177/0891243212464905

Lipovsky, C. (2006). Candidates’ negotiations of their expertise in job interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1147-1174. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.007

83

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lloyd, D. L., Phillips, K. W., Witson, J., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2010). Expertise in your midst: How congruence between status and speech style affect reactions to unique knowledge. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 379-395.

Marr, B. (2014, January 20). Want a promotion? Then don’t upspeak! LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140120061951-64875646- want-a-promotion-then-don-t-upspeak

McConnell-Ginet, S. (1978). Intonation in a man’s world. Signs, 3(3), 541-559.

McFadyen, R. G. (1997). The relationship between powerless speech, agentic behavior, and amount of talk. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(4). 470-479.

McGregor, R. (1980). The social distribution of an Australian English intonation contour. Working Papers of the Speech and Language. Research Centre, School of English and Linguistics, Macquarie University, (2), 1-26.

McGregor, J., & Palethorpe, S. (2008). High rising tunes in Australian English: The communicative function of l* and h* pitch accent onsets. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 28(2), 171-193. doi: 10.1080/07268600802308766

McLemore, C. (1991). The pragmatic interpretation of English intonation: Sorority speech (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (Publication number 303946119).

O’Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women’s language” or “powerless language”. In R. Borker, N. Furman, and S. McConnell-Ginet (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society, (pp. 93-100), New York, NY: Praeger.

Parton, S. R., Siltanen, S., Hosman, L., & Langenderfer, J. (2002). Employment interview outcomes and speech style effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 144-161. doi: 10.1177/02627X02021002003

Penfield, J., & Ornstein-Galicia, J. L. (1985). Varieties of English Around the World: Chicano English: An ethnic contact dialect. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Pennington, M., Lau, L., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Diversity in adoption of linguistic features of London English by Chinese and Bangladeshi adolescents. The Language Learning Journal, 39(2), 177-199.

84

Pierrechumbert, J. B., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack, (eds). (1990). Intentions in Communication, Bradford Books, (pp. 271-311), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~julia/papers/P&H90.pdf

Podesva, R. J. (2011). Salience and the social meaning of declarative contours: three case studies of gay professionals. Journal of English Linguistics, 39(3), 233-264. doi: 10.1177/0075424211405161

Retrospective power calculations. (n.d.). In Statpages.org. Retrieved from http://statpages.info/postpowr.html

Rhoden, M. (2014, June 4). Three speech habits that are worse than vocal fry in job interviews. TIME Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com

Ritchart, A., & Arvaniti, A. (2014). The use of high rise terminals in Southern Californian English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5), 4198. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4863274

Rubin, D., & Nelson, M. V. (1983). Multiple determinants of a stigmatized speech style: women’s language, powerless language, or anyone’s language. Language and Speech, 26(3), 273-290.

Sando, Y. T. (2009). Upspeak across Canadian English accents: Acoustic and sociophonetic evidence. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Retrieved from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2009/CLA2009_Talla_Sando.pdf

Smith, V., Siltanen, S. A., & Hosman, L. A. (1998). The effects of powerful and powerless speech styles and speaker expertise on impression formation and attitude change. Communication research reports, 15(1), 27-35.

Sumner, M. (2011). The role of variation in the perception of accented speech. Cognition, 199(1), 131-136. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.018

Tomlinson, Jr. J. M., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2011). Listeners’ comprehension of uptalk in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 119(1), 58-69. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.005

Tyler, J. C. (2015). Expanding and mapping the indexical field: Rising pitch, the uptalk stereotype, and perceptual variation. Journal of English Linguistics, 43(4), 1-17. doi: 10.1177/0075424215607061

Warren, P. (2016). Uptalk: The Phenomenon of Rising Intonation. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

85

Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation: An Introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wennerstrom, A. K., & Wennerstrom, A. (2001). Music of Everyday Speech: Prosody and Discourse Analysis. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Wiley, M., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: What if women talk more like men? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 12(9-10), 993-1007.

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. LINGUA, 90, 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp- content/uploads/2009/09/Linguistic-form-and-relevance.pdf

Wilson, D., & Wharton, D. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559-1579. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012

Young, D. M., Beier, E. G., & Beier, S. (1979). Beyond words: Influence of nonverbal behavior of female job applicants in the employment interview. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 346-350.