How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?”
By Steven D. Levitt
Fascinating new research by my University of Chicago colleague, Jeffrey Grogger, compares the wages of people who “sound black” when they talk to those who do not.
His main finding: blacks who “sound black” earn salaries that are 10 percent lower than blacks who do not “sound black,” even after controlling for measures of intelligence, experience in the work force, and other factors that influence how much people earn. (For what it is worth, whites who “sound black” earn 6 percent lower than other whites.)
How does Grogger know who “sounds black?” As part of a large longitudinal study called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, follow-up validation interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded.
Grogger was able to take these phone interviews, purge them of any identifying information, and then ask people to try to identify the voices as to whether the speaker was black or white. The listeners were pretty good at distinguishing race through voices: 98 percent of the time they got the gender of the speaker right, 84 percent of white speakers were correctly identified as white, and 77 percent of black speakers were correctly identified as black.
Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.
Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.
(It turns out you don’t want to sound southern, either. Although pretty imprecisely estimated, it is almost as bad for your wages to sound southern as it is to sound black, even controlling for whether you live in the south.)
So what does this all mean?
The first question to ask is whether the impact of speech on wages is a causal one. It is possible that there are many other characteristics that differ between blacks who do or do not “sound black” that Grogger cannot control for in his regressions. It does seem likely that the biases at work would make his estimate an upper bound. (Although it should also be noted that his estimates are for young people, and the importance of speech may become important with age, in which case his results might underestimate the long-run effects.)
If one believes Grogger’s effects are causal, then investing in the ability to not “sound black” looks to have a huge return — roughly of the same magnitude as getting one more year of schooling.
Of course, there is the issue of one’s identity. There may be personal costs associated with being black and not sounding black. But these costs would have to be pretty large. (When I have Asian Ph.D. students go on the job market in the United States, I tell them that I think there is rampant discrimination against non-English speakers and encourage them to adopt Americanized first names for the job market. Very few of my students choose to do so — either a testimony to the identity cost of pretending to be someone you aren’t, or possibly their lack of faith in my assessment of the amount of discrimination.)
I was talking with one of my colleagues about this study. He thinks it will be a very important and influential one.
I would like to know what 'sounding black' means for the writer. Does it mean a certain urban venacular? 'ghetto' broken english?
the Reason I say that is I know many 'black' american who speak proper english but I can tell they are black or of 'black' cultural background. It's almost like having an accent. and on top of that I think a portion of that does stem from Southern heritage.
My paternal aunt Margaret though born & bred in South Carolina, (according to my dad) always talked like a suburban white girl. Her husband(ex fire chief) has a strong southern accent. by the mid-late 70's there had a home in the suburbs and one of the 1st 'AA' families in W.Henrietta. All of their kids sound 'white' you wouldn't be able to tell they were 'black' but the eldest daughter who sound very much like a 'white girl' you can tell she either grew up around blacks or is black -you'd have to listen carefully. She has a more dominate middle class college educated AA social group. She actually sound a bit like Oprah Winfrey but more of a soprano The others have predominately white social groups.
Along with this study, I read some years ago something similar and it also mentioned having a Southern accent could not be good for you in certain jobs but they also mentioned the New Yawk/Brooklyn, Jersey, Boston accent: ethnic groups that have strong Brooklynese are mainly Italian-Americans, even if they don't live in those areas.
Last edited by gemini072 on Mon 14 Jul 2008 02:40; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 13 Jul 2008 01:32 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
I would like to know what 'sounding black' means for the writer. Does it mean a certain urban venacular? 'ghetto' broken english?
It could mean each one of those. Though, experiments with people correctly guessing the race of the person by listening to the voice seems to speak for itself, without the writer having to say what his thoughts are.
I did find it interesting, however, that a Southern accent can hurt you in the South.
Maybe it is not that a Black or White speech pattern is identified in Black Americans as much as two succinct speech patterns exist in different African American populations. One has been stereotyped as Black and the other, much like recognition of middle class Afro-Americana goes largely unrecognized and thus is seen as foreign to them and even as "White."
I believe there is a great deal of truth to the article, but there are some areas that have accents that are beyond their radar. My grandfather was native born as were his parents but he sounds foreign because he had a strong Geechee (Gullah) accent, so his would most likely get tossed out for not being native which is not true.
I would assume that I would be beyond it as well, for a different reason, I was a product of speech therapy(age 6 to 17). Some of my cousins along with myself were deemed as having speech impediments because our speech followed the same linguistic patterns including the rapid speed of our parents. Radio & news broadcasters, trained actors and voice-over people are also products of different forms of speech therapy.
Maybe it is not that a Black or White speech pattern is identified in Black Americans as much as two succinct speech patterns exist in different African American populations. One has been stereotyped as Black and the other, much like recognition of middle class Afro-Americana goes largely unrecognized and thus is seen as foreign to them and even as "White."
In a way, I think Salsassin is right-
I have been "pegged" as Black on the phone a few times. I am pasty-white, have 2 grad degrees... I DO NOT feel that when I do not wish to, that I can be pegged. But I'm wrong.
My father and I have almost the exact same speech patterns. If you listen to other well known AA's --James Earl Jones, for instance-- he has a very distinct pattern.
I think there is a third speech pattern-- one which isn't Black OR white--it's mixed heritage. Subject-Verb-Object arrangement in sentences are NOT like Standard English. It's more like Latin: the emphasis (and point) is at the end of the sentence.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 13 Jul 2008 14:44 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
Maybe it is not that a Black or White speech pattern is identified in Black Americans as much as two succinct speech patterns exist in different African American populations. One has been stereotyped as Black and the other, much like recognition of middle class Afro-Americana goes largely unrecognized and thus is seen as foreign to them and even as "White."
A couple of weeks ago, one person here commented that most of the time, they can correctly guess the ethnicity of the person when speaking over the phone, even if their speech patterns and accents resemble that of another ethicity; it seemed as though there was an allusion to the possiblity that, just like skull features and skin color, the physical properties of vocal cords may vary according to "race."
In that case, if 77% of speakers are correctly identified as black, I think that many of the participants may actually know the middle-class African American voice/speach patterns (that is, unless those who speak this was make up less than 23% of the African American population) - if I'm guessing correctly what you're referring to when you say this, someone like Montel Williams would be an example, right? If so, I think that many might be able to guess correctly - I'm pretty sure I could.
just like skull features and skin color, the physical properties of vocal cords may vary according to "race."
Neither skull features nor skin color vary according to "race." In physical anthropology, the term "race" lacks objective definition and is therefore intellectually meaningless.
In U.S. folklore, "race" means membership in America's only endogamous group. But this membership does not match either skulls or skin.
Regarding skulls, in U.S. folklore the natives of Chad, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Namibia are all seen as members of the Black race, although none have what (many years ago) used to be called "Negroid" skulls. The first four have what used to be called "Caucasoid" skulls, and Namibians have what used to be called either "Mongoloid" or "Capoid" skulls.
Regarding skin tone, Americans consider Jim Wright to be of the Black "race" without doubt and deny that Dinesh d'Souza is of the Black race, although the former is pinkish biege and the latter is dark brown.
If you are serious about your factual claim that "skull features and skin color ... vary according to race," then you should first define exactly what you meant by "race" before presenting evidence that to support your claim.
If you choose to claim that you meant "race" as imagined by U.S. folklore (membership in the America's only endogamous group), then you need not show that Americans rhetorically label their endogamous group as having "black" skin. This labeling is well known, despite even children knowing that it is a rhetorical fiction. Skull features might be easier to defend.
Maybe it is not that a Black or White speech pattern is identified in Black Americans as much as two succinct speech patterns exist in different African American populations. One has been stereotyped as Black and the other, much like recognition of middle class Afro-Americana goes largely unrecognized and thus is seen as foreign to them and even as "White."
A couple of weeks ago, one person here commented that most of the time, they can correctly guess the ethnicity of the person when speaking over the phone, even if their speech patterns and accents resemble that of another ethicity; it seemed as though there was an allusion to the possiblity that, just like skull features and skin color, the physical properties of vocal cords may vary according to "race."
In that case, if 77% of speakers are correctly identified as black, I think that many of the participants may actually know the middle-class African American voice/speach patterns (that is, unless those who speak this was make up less than 23% of the African American population) - if I'm guessing correctly what you're referring to when you say this, someone like Montel Williams would be an example, right? If so, I think that many might be able to guess correctly - I'm pretty sure I could.
I would have to see actual scientific studies versus colloquial belief. Would they be able to recognize a Sidi from India? What about an Afro-Russian?
I suspect what is at issue more is accents versus grammar. A person can speak grammatically standard English and still add inflections that are based on accents common in an ethnic group.
Let's not forget that there is ample evidence that most people overstimate their abilities in the first place. Until you actually carry out a test with controls, etc, it is still just a colloquial claim.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 13 Jul 2008 18:11 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
I would have to see actual scientific studies versus colloquial belief. Would they be able to recognize a Sidi from India? What about an Afro-Russian?
I'm sure that if someone had the proper frame of reference, they probably could identify the two groups that you mentioned. I couldn't, because I don't have that frame of reference.
Salsassin wrote:
I suspect what is at issue more is accents versus grammar. A person can speak grammatically standard English and still add inflections that are based on accents common in an ethnic group.
I don't think it's always the accents. Sometimes, I think it's the actual voice itself. In this case, I can bring up Montel Williams again - at least, to me, he has neither an accent nor grammatical structure that one associates with African Americans - however, he does seem to have the "voice" - though it's hard for me to describe. It's kind of like how we know we're talking to very fat and obese person over the phone, though it's difficult to describe what an obese person sounds like (even if the person isn't breathing heavily, there's just something else about the voice). I know that this is still mere "colloquial belief," but I think that people people guessing with 77% accuracy says alot.
Salsassin wrote:
Let's not forget that there is ample evidence that most people overstimate their abilities in the first place. Until you actually carry out a test with controls, etc, it is still just a colloquial claim.
I know that the number one deadly sin around here is to assume something, but I'm willing to bet that if your very life depended on being able to correctly guess at least 77 out of 100 voices, that you'd live to tell the story like anyone else.
I would have to see actual scientific studies versus colloquial belief. Would they be able to recognize a Sidi from India? What about an Afro-Russian?
I'm sure that if someone had the proper frame of reference, they probably could identify the two groups that you mentioned. I couldn't, because I don't have that frame of reference.
Salsassin wrote:
I suspect what is at issue more is accents versus grammar. A person can speak grammatically standard English and still add inflections that are based on accents common in an ethnic group.
I don't think it's always the accents. Sometimes, I think it's the actual voice itself. In this case, I can bring up Montel Williams again - at least, to me, he has neither an accent nor grammatical structure that one associates with African Americans - however, he does seem to have the "voice" - though it's hard for me to describe. It's kind of like how we know we're talking to very fat and obese person over the phone, though it's difficult to describe what an obese person sounds like (even if the person isn't breathing heavily, there's just something else about the voice). I know that this is still mere "colloquial belief," but I think that people people guessing with 77% accuracy says alot.
Salsassin wrote:
Let's not forget that there is ample evidence that most people overstimate their abilities in the first place. Until you actually carry out a test with controls, etc, it is still just a colloquial claim.
I know that the number one deadly sin around here is to assume something, but I'm willing to bet that if your very life depended on being able to correctly guess at least 77 out of 100 voices, that you'd live to tell the story like anyone else.
Actually, studies about voice and body characteristics have been done.
Inferring speakers’ physical attributes from their voices
Robert M. Krauss Robin Freyberg and Ezequiel Morsella
Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA
Abstract
Two experiments examined listeners’ ability to make accurate inferences about speakers from the nonlinguistic content of their speech. In Experiment I, naďve listeners heard male and female speakers articulating two test sentences, and tried to select which of a pair of photographs depicted the speaker. On average they selected the correct photo 76.5% of the time. All performed at a level that was reliably better than chance. In Experiment II, judges heard the test sentences and estimated the speakers’ age, height, and weight. A comparison group made the same estimates from photographs of the speakers. Although estimates made from photos are more accurate than those made from voice, for age and height the differences are quite small in magnitude—a little more than a year in age and less than a half inch in height. When judgments are pooled, estimates made from photos are not uniformly superior to those made from voices.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
