Thinking in a foreign language distorts allocation of cognitive effort: Evidence from reasoning

Are people really less moral in their foreign language? Proficiency and comprehension matter for the moral foreign language effect in Russian speakers

Previous work has demonstrated that people are more willing to sacrifice one person to save five in a foreign language (FL) than in their native tongue. This may be due to the FL either reducing concerns about sacrificial harm (deontological inclinations) or increasing concerns about overall outcomes (utilitarian inclinations). Moreover, proficiency in a foreign language (FL) may moderate results. To test these possibilities, we investigated the moral foreign language effect (MFLE) in a novel sample of Russian L1/English FL speakers. We employed process dissociation (PD)-a technique that independently assesses concerns about rejecting harm and maximizing outcomes in sacrificial dilemmas, and we assessed measures of objective and subjective foreign language proficiency and of dilemma comprehension. Results replicated the pattern of increased acceptance of sacrificial harm in FL demonstrated in earlier studies, but a PD analysis showed no evidence of increased concerns for utilitarian outcomes in a FL; instead, this pattern was driven by reduced concerns regarding sacrificial harm. However, people who reported better dilemma comprehension in the FL demonstrated both stronger deontological and utilitarian responding, and people with higher objective proficiency displayed stronger utilitarian responding in the FL than those with lower proficiency. These findings show that utilitarian inclinations are affected by reading dilemmas in a foreign language mainly in low-proficiency speakers, and that while emotional concerns for sacrifice are reduced in FL, better comprehension can increase such concerns as well as concern for outcomes.

Why Should We Study the Foreign Language Effect: Debiasing through Affecting Metacognition?

Debiasing is a method of improving people's decisions by reducing their reliance on salient intuitions causing them to behave suboptimally or biasedly. However, many of the known debiasing techniques have limited effectiveness or can only remedy a one-shot decision, rather than having a lasting impact. In this work, I focus on the role of metacognition in debiasing decision-making and discuss how it can be better understood through the lens of the foreign language effect. The foreign language effect suggests that using a foreign language can sometimes benefit people's decision-making without providing them with additional information or instructions regarding the task. However, we do not fully understand how the foreign language effect works and its limitations. I conclude by urging scientists to research this effect with the hope of having a lasting positive impact on society.

How providing public COVID-19 mitigation instructions in a foreign language can increase people's sense of control

Processing information in a learned foreign language can alter one's judgment or cognitive evaluation of stimuli. Documented consequences include a reduction in perceived negativity and perceived severity of crime or diseases. The global COVID-19 pandemic has offered a unique opportunity to investigate this phenomenon in a real-life public health communication context. The aim of this study is to investigate how foreign language processing influences people's reaction towards freedom-restrictive messages. In our experimental study (N = 605), we presented participants with pandemic mitigation instructions in their native language versus a learned foreign language and assessed their perceived sense of control, cognitive evaluation of the instructions, and the intention to adhere to them. The results indicated that the use of a foreign language influenced people's perceived sense of control in a way that might intuitively be surprising: foreign language enhanced sense of control. This positively influenced the cognitive evaluation of the instructions' effectiveness and the intention to comply with them. The present research demonstrates that foreign language processing influences individuals' responses to specific, real-life instructions. Our results provide important contributions to the literature on foreign language effects and public communication and enable practitioners to more accurately predict recipient responses to global crisis communications.

Not all bilinguals are the same: A meta-analysis of the moral foreign language effect

Emerging evidence shows bilinguals employ different decision-making strategies in their foreign language compared to their native language (known as the Foreign Language Effect). When completing moral dilemmas, accumulating research findings indicate that bilinguals are more likely to endorse the utilitarian option. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate whether linguistic variables (proficiency, immersion, and language similarity) moderate utilitarian responding to moral dilemmas in a foreign language. A systematic literature search extracted experiments comparing binary responses to moral dilemmas among bilingual participants. Analyses confirmed a moral Foreign Language Effect within personal dilemmas, though this effect was moderated by self-reported reading proficiency, whereby bilinguals with higher self-reported reading proficiency were less likely to make a utilitarian choice. Our findings suggest that not all bilinguals may experience a Foreign Language Effect, with low self-reported reading proficiency being the most likely indicator of whether their response tendencies to a moral dilemma change in the foreign language.

Is There a Foreign Accent Effect on Moral Judgment?

Recent studies have shown that people make more utilitarian decisions when dealing with a moral dilemma in a foreign language than in their native language. Emotion, cognitive load, and psychological distance have been put forward as explanations for this foreign language effect. The question that arises is whether a similar effect would be observed when processing a dilemma in one’s own language but spoken by a foreign-accented speaker. Indeed, foreign-accented speech has been shown to modulate emotion processing, to disrupt processing fluency and to increase psychological distance due to social categorisation. We tested this hypothesis by presenting 435 participants with two moral dilemmas, the trolley dilemma and the footbridge dilemma online, either in a native accent or a foreign accent. In Experiment 1, 184 native Spanish speakers listened to the dilemmas in Spanish recorded by a native speaker, a British English or a Cameroonian native speaker. In Experiment 2, 251 Dutch native speakers listened to the dilemmas in Dutch in their native accent, in a British English, a Turkish, or in a French accent. Results showed an increase in utilitarian decisions for the Cameroonian- and French-accented speech compared to the Spanish or Dutch native accent, respectively. When collapsing all the speakers from the two experiments, a similar increase in the foreign accent condition compared with the native accent condition was observed. This study is the first demonstration of a foreign accent effect on moral judgements, and despite the variability in the effect across accents, the findings suggest that a foreign accent, like a foreign language, is a linguistic context that modulates (neuro)cognitive mechanisms, and consequently, impacts our behaviour. More research is needed to follow up on this exploratory study and to understand the influence of factors such as emotion reduction, cognitive load, psychological distance, and speaker’s idiosyncratic features on moral judgments.

Using a Foreign Language Changes Medical Judgments of Preventative Care

Every day, multilinguals around the world make important healthcare decisions while using a foreign language. The present study examined how the use of a native vs. non-native language shapes evaluations and decisions about preventative care. Bilinguals were randomly assigned to evaluate a series of medical scenarios in either their native or non-native language. Each scenario described potential adverse effects of a medical condition and a preventative treatment, as well as the population risk of disease- or treatment-related complications. Participants judged the perceived negativity and likelihood of experiencing adverse effects and indicated how willing they would be to accept the preventative treatment. We found that bilinguals using a foreign language perceived disease symptoms and treatment side effects to be less negative than those using their native tongue. Foreign language users were also more likely to account for the objective risks associated with medical conditions and treatments when making decisions about preventative care. We conclude that the use of a native vs. foreign language changes how people evaluate the consequences of accepting and declining preventative treatment, with potential implications for millions of providers and patients who routinely make medical choices in their non-native tongue.

Treatment choice in the presence of conflicting information: The role of physician likeability in the choice of non-proven therapies against conventional treatment

Research on why patients sometimes choose non-proven therapies (NPT) instead of conventional treatments is limited. We investigated how physician likeability influences the choice of NPT instead of conventional treatment. In an experiment with three medical scenarios, participants (N = 384) consulted two physicians who gave conflicting recommendations: The first physician recommended a conventional treatment and the second one recommended a NPT. We manipulated the likeability of the first physician, who was either likeable or unlikeable. Using mediation analyses, we explored how the effect of likeability was channelled and whether time pressure influenced treatment choice. Participants chose the NPT more often (OR = 1.43, 95% CI [1.03-2.00]), had more positive affective responses, and perceived more benefit from NPT when the conventional treatment was recommended by an unlikeable (vs. likeable) physician. Time pressure had no effect on treatment choice. Physicians' likeability might play an important role in treatment choice in the presence of conflicting information. Providers should be cognizant that poor communication might push patients to prefer the advice of more likeable physicians, even when they prescribe NPT instead of conventional treatment.

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims-i.e., "flatten the curve" graphs-an effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic. Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment's additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.