The Persuasiveness of British Accents: Enhancing Parental Self-Efficacy to Manage Children’s Oral Health Behaviours Zoe Adams Queen Mary, University of London August 2018 Abstract This interdisciplinary research builds on Pine et al.’s (2016) oral health intervention, ‘Bedtime Brush and Read Together to Sleep’ (BBaRTS), conducted among families in Tayside, Kent and Newham. It uses children’s storybooks to improve parents’ self- efficacy to manage their child’s oral health behaviours. The storybooks are being adapted into animated cartoons with voice-overs. Therefore, my research question is: What are the persuasive effects of British accents in each BBaRTS trial area? Study one tests the persuasiveness of six British accents (Received Pronunciation (RP), Multicultural London English (MLE), Yorkshire English, Dundee English, Irish English and Estuary English) among 114 parents (Tayside, n = 46; Kent, n = 34; Newham, n = 34). It was hypothesised that there would be a persuasive effect of accent, which differs by area. Participants completed an accent identification task, along with implicit and explicit measurement procedures. In Tayside, Estuary English was more persuasive than MLE (p = 0.002). In Newham, MLE was more persuasive than Dundee English (p = 0.001), Yorkshire English (p = 0.011) and RP (p = 0.011). In Kent, there was no persuasive effect of accent. Findings are examined in the context of Gawronski and Bodenhausen’s (2006, 2011) Associative- Propositional Evaluation model. This study also explores individual differences and reaction time in relation to accent persuasiveness, but results suggest that neither factor plays a fundamental role. Study two applies the most and least persuasive accent in Newham (MLE and Dundee English) to animated versions of the BBaRTS storybooks. 37 participants from Tower Hamlets – a demographically similar East London borough – completed an experiment based on the self-validation hypothesis (Petty et al. 2002). It was hypothesised that accent would affect participants’ confidence in their thoughts about the oral health messages, and in turn their attitudes. MLE was indeed associated with higher thought confidence than Dundee English (p = 0.001), but not with more favourable attitudes to the oral health messages. Results are discussed in relation to the participants’ English proficiency. This research contributes to the growing work on implicit cognition in sociolinguistics, and furthers our understanding of how accent interacts with persuasion. Crucially, it emphasizes the value of interdisciplinary research by connecting linguistics and public health. Queen Mary’s OPAL #37 Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics 3 Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my supervisor Jenny Cheshire, whose great warmth and wisdom have made my journey infinitely easier. She reassured me in times of uncertainty and remained confident in my abilities (except maybe my use of colons and semi-colons). Most importantly, she was always approachable, and helped me retain a sense of humour. It has truly been an honour. I am exceptionally grateful to Erez Levon, whose wealth of knowledge on social psychology and experimental linguistics has been invaluable. In particular, his immeasurable patience during my struggles with R programming quite literally made this thesis possible. Thank you for helping me to persevere. I am indebted to Cynthia Pine whose research led me on this academic path. She gave me an amazing opportunity to collaborate with a different discipline, which introduced me to a world far from my own. While it was challenging to step out of my comfort zone, her encouragement along the way made it far less daunting. I must also thank Melisa, Christian, and Danniella; my PhD years could not have been spent with a better group of people. They shared my love for inane discussions, memes, and didn’t judge me when my lunch was a fried egg. I want to thank my darling friend Joe, who never left my side and brightened every day with his beautiful imagination, insightful conversations and hilarious thoughts. To my partner Frankie, your kindness, positivity and understanding have been overwhelming. Thank you for indulging in all my niche foibles, like singing sea shanties, and being a source of endless comfort. I adore you. Finally, my family, Bez, Marge and Pargo, words can’t express how blessed I am to have your continual love and support. Thank you for helping me go further than I ever thought possible. I owe this all to you. 4 List of contents Abstract ..................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 3 List of contents .......................................................................................... 4 List of tables .............................................................................................. 9 List of figures .......................................................................................... 13 List of abbreviations ................................................................................. 15 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 16 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Structure of thesis ............................................................................................................. 18 2 Public Health: Dental caries and the BBaRTS trial .................................. 21 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Health communication ...................................................................................................... 22 2.3 The problem ...................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Sugar .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 Fluoride ...................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.3 Dental caries .............................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Solutions: An ecological framework ................................................................................. 24 2.5 Health models ................................................................................................................... 25 2.5.1 Health belief model .................................................................................................... 26 2.5.2 Transtheoretical model ............................................................................................... 27 2.5.3 Nudge theory ............................................................................................................. 28 2.5.4 Self-efficacy ............................................................................................................... 28 2.6 Self-efficacy and dental caries .......................................................................................... 30 2.7 BBaRTS intervention ........................................................................................................ 30 2.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 32 3 Language attitudes and persuasion ......................................................... 34 3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 34 3.2 Language attitudes in Britain ............................................................................................ 34 3.3 Persuasion ......................................................................................................................... 41 3.3.1 History ....................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.2 Models of persuasion ................................................................................................. 43 3.3.3 Recipient factors ........................................................................................................ 45 3.3.4 Communicator factors ................................................................................................ 46 3.4 Attitudes ............................................................................................................................ 48 3.4.1 Definition ................................................................................................................... 48 5 3.4.2 Associative-Propositional Evaluation model ............................................................. 54 3.4.3 Explicit measurement procedures .............................................................................. 59 3.4.4 Implicit measurement procedures .............................................................................. 61 3.4.5 Implicit measurement procedures in sociolinguistics ................................................ 63 3.5 Stereotypes and prejudice ................................................................................................. 68 3.5.1 Stereotypes