Presenting in English in Zurich: does accent distort the assessment of a message?
In Zurich, financial services, insurance, technology and the European headquarters of international groups provide settings where English may bring together people with different first languages. The management question is specific: how can an oral recommendation be assessed without confusing familiarity of accent with strength of evidence?
What the literature establishes
Shiri Lev-Ari and Boaz Keysar (2010, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology) asked participants to assess the truthfulness of statements read in English by native or non-native speakers. In their experiments, statements delivered with a non-native accent were judged less true, even though the people reading them were not their authors. This finding shows that a feature of delivery can influence judgments of content, without establishing a universal disadvantage for every accent.
Processing ease as a misleading cue
Rolf Reber and Norbert Schwarz (1999, Consciousness and Cognition) showed that the visual ease of reading a statement could alter judgments of its truth. Their manipulation concerned visual legibility rather than speech, but it supports a relevant mechanism: processing ease can serve as a cue to truth. During a presentation, the effort required to understand might therefore be attributed to the message rather than to the conditions in which it is received.
The premature conclusion
Concluding that speakers should eliminate their accent would turn a finding about listeners’ judgments into a prescription for presenters. These studies demonstrate neither that a native accent guarantees sound reasoning nor that accent-reduction training improves collective decisions. For managers, the challenge also involves distinguishing genuine difficulty understanding from a general impression of lower competence. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these experiments do not reproduce
Assessing short statements is not the same as examining an investment recommendation, an insurance risk or a technology project. Professional exchanges add documents, prior knowledge of the speakers and opportunities to request clarification. The available findings therefore justify scrutiny of assessment criteria, not a numerical estimate of the disadvantage experienced by presenters in Zurich.
A practical check in Zurich
Within SHR’s “Public Speaking & impact” programme, a proposed exercise for Zurich teams would have two separate, randomly assigned groups assess a recorded presentation and its anonymised transcript, using the same rubric covering the recommendation, evidence and limitations. The main measure would be the mean difference in argument-strength ratings between the two formats, supplemented by a separate question about ease of understanding. This difference would not isolate accent, since moving to writing also removes voice and rhythm, but would make any dependence of the assessment on format testable. The debrief would examine the documented reasons for the ratings, rather than the speaker’s conformity to a native-English model. To go further: explore the Public Speaking & Impact training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Public Speaking & Impact in Zurich
- public speaking & impact
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich