Compare methods

	Language Attitude Survey	Verbal-Guise Technique
Field	Linguistics	Linguistics
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	1992	2010
Originator	Survey methodologists and attitude researchers (e.g., A. N. Oppenheim; Colin Baker; Peter Garrett)	Language-attitudes researchers (variant of Lambert's matched guise; synthesis by Peter Garrett)
Type	Direct self-report survey measure of language attitudes	Indirect experimental measure of language attitudes
Seminal source	Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521759175	Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521759175
Aliases	Language Attitude Questionnaire, Direct Attitude Measurement, Language Attitudes Survey	Verbal Guise Test, Speaker Evaluation Verbal Guise, Verbal-Guise Experiment
Related	4	3
Summary	A direct language attitude survey measures what people think and feel about languages, dialects, and varieties by asking them explicitly. Using questionnaires built from Likert scales, semantic-differential items, and open-ended questions, the direct approach gathers respondents' self-reported evaluations of varieties — their prestige, beauty, usefulness, or appropriateness — and analyses these responses for reliability, underlying structure, and differences between social groups. It is the self-report counterpart to indirect techniques such as the matched-guise test, trading some protection against socially desirable answers for transparency, scale, and ease of administration.	The verbal-guise technique is the naturalistic cousin of the matched-guise technique for measuring language attitudes. Instead of one bidialectal speaker producing every variety, different speakers each produce a single variety, and listeners rate each speaker on personality and status trait scales. This solves the matched-guise problem of finding speakers who can authentically and equivalently perform two or more varieties, and it uses genuine native voices for each variety — but at the cost of reintroducing speaker-to-speaker differences as a potential confound. It remains a core instrument in the speaker-evaluation paradigm for studying covert attitudes toward accents, dialects, and languages.