all students and were split equally into a “southern” and a “northern” group. The results, however, did not show much variation in the judges' attitudes towards the accents. The matched-guise test has since been used on many other countries for a range of other languages and dialects. Procedure i) the variables of 'sex'; 'age'; 'first language (L1)', 'variety used in domestic relationships', etc. of the 'judges' evaluating the recorded 'voices' are taken into consideration; ii) the variables of 'sex', 'age', 'voice' and 'linguistic variety' of the individuals recorded are taken into consideration. iii) the stimulus material spoken in the linguistic variety that is recorded is studied from a strictly linguistic approach (phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical aspects) and from a stylistic point of view (formal, informal register...). iv) the interviewees have no information about the 'voices'; that is, they do not know that the 'voices' speaking at least two different linguistic varieties are the same person and that these are guises; this is where the technique gets its name: matched guise. v) there is total control over the variable 'voice', with the removal of all features of speed, volume, timbre, tone, etc. Nonetheless, the importance of this technique lies in manipulating the linguistic features of the oral stimulus material, rather than in manipulating the recorded voices. vi) the length of the oral stimulus material recording is two minutes; vii) the 'judges' or interviewees are asked to evaluate the personal qualities of the recorded individuals on the basis of their 'voices', as if they were evaluating the 'voice' of somebody they did not know during a telephone conversation. viii) a questionnaire allows the personality traits of the 'voices' evaluated to be attributed to the 'voices' (intelligence; leadership; physical attractiveness; social status, unpleasantness...). Criticisms Limitations It is typical in matched-guise tests for one of the recordings to be of a speaker using his or her 'natural' dialect, and another of the same speaker 'performing' another dialect. To assume that the two are commensurable is methodologically naive. In addition, in certain scenarios it may be impossible for the passages to be spoken by the individual due to the likelihood that the listener recognizes speakers as one and the same. To avoid this many studies have used different speakers to read the passage. This is problematic as it is difficult to control for differences between the speakers, such as speed or intonation (Tsalikis et