Giorgi Managadze

Professor Colombo Russell

ENG 110 – Freshman Composition

Oct 29, 2025

Accent Bias and Discrimination

This essay will explore how accent bias undermines the credibility of immigrants in academic and professional settings by reinforcing stereotypes, influencing perceptions of intelligence and competence, and contributing to systemic barriers that limit equal opportunity and representation. The scope of this essay won’t be limited to just the United States, however, as I believe that this is an issue which plagues most of what is now considered the developed parts of the world.

Accent bias is a type of linguistic bias which is based on a speaker’s apparent pronunciation which, according to O’Brien and Co., becomes a source of partiality in hiring and retention decisions. From the study conducted by said authors, they conclude that “Although a second language accent is not related to an individual’s ability to perform their job well, research has shown that second language speakers tend to be penalized both in the hiring process and after they are on the job” (11). In addition, O’Brien and Co. also come to the conclusion that “…the interviews uncovered the notion that accents might be perceived as a disorder and the belief that accent reduction training is effective at eliminating them. Research has not only demonstrated that accent reduction courses are usually ineffective but also that they are often counterproductive in their fear-mongering and false claims” (12). The point which the authors are trying to make is that, in the world of HR Management Training, the topic of accent and accent bias is either treated similarly to a taboo or not taken seriously enough to the point of the “training” on accent bias having the opposite effects on employees and causing much more harm than good.

The issue of accent bias and its effects, outside of workplaces, occurs mostly within educational institutions. This is illustrated in Sarit Siburud’s “Bias on the Tip of the Tongue: Addressing Accent Bias in English Speaking Assessments”, where the author displays the issues faced in ESL learners and in assessing their competence with the English Language. The main conclusion which the author reaches is “ The presence of prejudice of accents is manifested not only in the subjective evaluation of the students’ language assessments, but also in the wider implications for the self-esteem of students and linguistic development. The negative impact of these biases requires a paradigm shift towards inclusive evaluation methods that celebrate linguistic diversity.” (163). The essence of the author’s argument is that accent bias and the general treatment regarding accents within language learning institutions has a profoundly negative impact on an ESL learner’s ability to properly study and be assessed without bias or discrimination merely based on accent alone.

In addition to the aforementioned examples of accent bias and its issues, Henri Maindidze and Co.’s research and analysis of the magnitude and moderators of bias against non-standard accents in employment interview evaluations shows, in general, how prevalent the issue of accent bias is. Within their findings they conclude:  “Results from a multi-level random-effects meta-analysis (…) demonstrate that standard-accented (SA) interviewees are consistently favored over non-standard-accented (NSA) interviewees (…). Accent bias is stronger against women compared to men, particularly when evaluator samples are predominantly female, and was strongly predicted by interviewers’ stereotypes of NSA interviewees as less competent and, to a lesser extent, as less warm.” (Maindidze, 1). According to the authors of this paper, in most audio-video/only audio recorded interviews, interviewers who are accustomed to a standard accent and interview various qualified individuals, both from those of the same accent and those whose accents differ, are much more likely to be warmer and receptive to the standard-accent interviewee than to a non-standard-accent interviewee, often treating said person in a more rude/condescending way. The writers of the article also examined alternative cases in order to see if there was any differing effect caused by the genders of those in the analyzed scenarios, “…, women judged NSA women more harshly than they did men, and that neither men nor women judged NSA men as harshly, revealing the complex double standards of gender stereotypes. Additionally, evaluator stereotypes of NSA speakers as less competent and, to a lesser extent, less warm, helped explain some of the reasoning behind this bias against non-standard accents as less hirable.” (Maindidze, 24-25). From this, the authors determined that female-on-female scenarios resulted in a colder and harsher interaction than other combinations.

It is also worth mentioning that the consequences of accent bias, outside of academic and professional settings, can be seen in the sphere of politics, with the bias affecting not only potential qualified and able candidates, but also regular people. The effects of accent bias within politics is best illustrated by Peled, Yael and Matteo Bonotti in their  paper “Sound Reasoning: Why Accent Bias Matters for Democratic Theory”. From said paper, the authors come to the conclusion that “As the linguistic composition of the demos becomes more complex, the risk of accent bias and its threat to democratic values of liberty, equality, inclusivity, and reciprocity increases. This pressure poses serious challenges to the realization of key democratic values, not least because of the impossibility-and moral impermissibility-of a demos wholly unified by a single accent.” (Peled, 422-423). Thus through this article, the effects of accent bias are shown to not only affect professional politicians but also ordinary citizens, to whom it will seem like a negative externality. This negative externality effect shouldn’t be treated as a mere annoyance, but rather as a grave issue unjustly brought upon ordinary people by accent bias, which as previously mentioned, is usually treated either as an issue which gets swept under the rug by those not wishing to “open that can of worms” or those who merely play it off as a joke or as a harmless stereotype. This negative reinforcement can and will have dangerous effects not only on the aforementioned settings, but it will also manifest as a negative externality to almost all walks of life, in due time if said issue persists.

To conclude, it is evidently clear that the issue of accent bias is not an issue that can be merely brushed under the rug, instead it is a prevalent problem not limited to businesses and/or professional settings, but also within academic and political settings. Beyond the scope of this essay the issue of accent bias is prevalent in a wide array of other settings which is usually not brought up as a concern within said places or is merely brushed off as a joke, with the person who brought up this issue often being reprimanded or slightly punished for their efforts. 

Works Cited

Maindidze, Henri T., et al. “A Meta‐Analysis of Accent Bias in Employee Interviews: The Effects of Gender and Accent Stereotypes, Interview Modality, and Other Moderating Features.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 33, no. 1, Feb. 2025, p. e12519. DOI.org (Crossref), 

https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12519

O’Brien, Mary Grantham, et al. “Accent Bias Training in Undergraduate Human Resource Management Education.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 2024.

https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231226212

Peled, Yael, and Matteo Bonotti. “Sound Reasoning: Why Accent Bias Matters for

       Democratic Theory.” Journal of Politics, vol. 81, no. 2, Apr. 2019, pp. 411–25.

       EBSCOhost, 

https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1086/701725.

Siribud, Sarit. “Bias on the Tip of the Tongue: Addressing Accent Bias in English Speaking Assessments.” New English Teacher, vol. 19, no. 2, 2025, p. 156.