Language modality influences risk perception: Innovations read well but sound even better.

Psychological theories implicitly assume that the modality in which information is conveyed-spoken or written-leaves judgment and choice unaltered. Modality is rarely considered in textbooks on judgment and decision making, and the selection of modality in research is often based on convenience. We challenge this theoretical assumption. Three experiments (N = 984) show that the modality in which novel technologies are described systematically influences their perceived risk and benefit. Participants either read or heard advantages and disadvantages of novel technologies and then assessed their risk and benefit. In Study 1, spoken descriptions prompted more positive evaluations toward the technologies in terms of overall risks and benefits than written descriptions. Studies 2 and 3 replicated this modality effect and demonstrated that affect partially explains it, as spoken descriptions induced more positive feelings toward the new technologies than written descriptions. Study 3 (preregistered) showed that the influence of modality is unique to novel technologies and does not extend to familiar ones. These findings contribute theoretically to the understanding of the relationship between language and thought, and carry implications for survey research and the use of voice assistant technology.

Thinking More or Feeling Less? Explaining the Foreign-Language Effect on Moral Judgment.

Would you kill one person to save five? People are more willing to accept such utilitarian action when using a foreign language than when using their native language. In six experiments, we investigated why foreign-language use affects moral choice in this way. On the one hand, the difficulty of using a foreign language might slow people down and increase deliberation, amplifying utilitarian considerations of maximizing welfare. On the other hand, use of a foreign language might stunt emotional processing, attenuating considerations of deontological rules, such as the prohibition against killing. Using a process-dissociation technique, we found that foreign-language use decreases deontological responding but does not increase utilitarian responding. This suggests that using a foreign language affects moral choice not through increased deliberation but by blunting emotional reactions associated with the violation of deontological rules.

Exposure to multiple languages enhances communication skills in infancy.

Early exposure to multiple languages can enhance children's communication skills, even when children are effectively monolingual (Fan, Liberman, Keysar & Kinzler, ). Here we report evidence that the social benefits of multilingual exposure emerge in infancy. Sixteen-month-old infants participated in a communication task that required taking a speaker's perspective to understand her intended meaning. Infants were presented with two identical toys, such as two cars. One toy was mutually visible to both the infant and the speaker, but the other was visible only to the infant and was blocked from the speaker's view by an opaque barrier. The speaker requested the mutually visible toy and we evaluated whether infants understood the speaker's request. Whereas monolingual infants were at chance in choosing between the two toys, infants with multilingual exposure reliably chose the toy the speaker requested. Successful performance was not related to the degree of exposure to other languages, suggesting that even minimal multilingual exposure may enhance communication skills.

The Exposure Advantage: Early Exposure to a Multilingual Environment Promotes Effective Communication.

Early language exposure is essential to developing a formal language system, but may not be sufficient for communicating effectively. To understand a speaker's intention, one must take the speaker's perspective. Multilingual exposure may promote effective communication by enhancing perspective taking. We tested children on a task that required perspective taking to interpret a speaker's intended meaning. Monolingual children failed to interpret the speaker's meaning dramatically more often than both bilingual children and children who were exposed to a multilingual environment but were not bilingual themselves. Children who were merely exposed to a second language performed as well as bilingual children, despite having lower executive-function scores. Thus, the communicative advantages demonstrated by the bilinguals may be social in origin, and not due to enhanced executive control. For millennia, multilingual exposure has been the norm. Our study shows that such an environment may facilitate the development of perspective-taking tools that are critical for effective communication.

Executive control influences linguistic representations.

Although it is known that words acquire their meanings partly from the contexts in which they are used, we proposed that the way in which words are processed can also influence their representation. We further propose that individual differences in the way that words are processed can consequently lead to individual differences in the way that they are represented. Specifically, we showed that executive control influences linguistic representations by influencing the coactivation of competing and reinforcing terms. Consequently, people with poorer executive control perceive the meanings of homonymous terms as being more similar to one another, and those of polysemous terms as being less similar to one another, than do people with better executive control. We also showed that bilinguals with poorer executive control experience greater cross-linguistic interference than do bilinguals with better executive control. These results have implications for theories of linguistic representation and language organization.

Listening speaks to our intuition while reading promotes analytic thought.

It is widely assumed that thinking is independent of language modality because an argument is either logically valid or invalid regardless of whether we read or hear it. This is taken for granted in areas such as psychology, medicine, and the law. Contrary to this assumption, we demonstrate that thinking from spoken information leads to more intuitive performance compared with thinking from written information. Consequently, we propose that people think more intuitively in the spoken modality and more analytically in the written modality. This effect was robust in five experiments (N = 1,243), across a wide range of thinking tasks, from simple trivia questions to complex syllogisms, and it generalized across two different languages, English and Chinese. We show that this effect is consistent with neuroscientific findings and propose that modality dependence could result from how language modalities emerge in development and are used over time. This finding sheds new light on the way language influences thought and has important implications for research that relies on linguistic materials and for domains where thinking and reasoning are central such as law, medicine, and business. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The Impact of Informational Intervention on HPV Vaccination Intention among Heterosexual Men.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, despite widespread under-vaccination amongst men and the importance of vaccinating both sexes to curb the spread of HPV, research has focused on promoting HPV vaccination predominantly amongst women. Therefore, the current study examines the effectiveness of different informational interventions in promoting vaccination intentions amongst heterosexual men. In a preregistered study of 583 unvaccinated adult men, we randomly assigned participants to one of four informational interventions aimed at promoting awareness of HPV risks and vaccine uptake: (1) risks to oneself (n = 145), (2) risks to their female partner (n = 144), (3) risks to oneself and their female partner (n = 153), and (4) general vaccine information (n = 153). Amongst participants reporting a sexual history (67%), intentions to get vaccinated significantly increased by 10.75 points on a 100-point scale (p < 0.01) after they received information about the risks of HPV for both themselves and their female partner, compared to receiving information about only their own HPV risk. These findings provide valuable guidance for public health officials and policymakers into the effectiveness of different messaging strategies in promoting HPV vaccination amongst adult male populations to increase vaccination rates.

Foreign language reduces false memories by increasing memory monitoring.

People have false memories that distort their recollection of past events. Language is an important source of such memories, from providing false inferences to outright misinformation. Here we investigate the impact of using a native or foreign language on bilinguals' susceptibility to false memories. Although language has been argued to impact false memories in multiple ways, our study was inspired by recent work in the decision-making literature, which leads to the novel hypothesis that foreign language encourages people to engage in careful memory monitoring that could reduce false memories. This hypothesis contrasts with a processing load account, which predicts that a foreign language would increase false memories because it is naturally more difficult to process information in a foreign language. We tested these hypotheses using two false memory tasks. Using the DRM task, Experiment 1 found that individuals were more accurate in identifying false memories when using their foreign language compared with their native tongue, consistent with the memory monitoring hypothesis. Using the misinformation task, Experiment 2 found that processing misleading information in one's foreign language eliminated false memories, again supporting the hypothesis that a foreign language increases the use of memory monitoring. These findings support a monitoring hypothesis that has been overlooked in prior studies on bilingualism and false memory, with implications for billions of people who regularly use a foreign language. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The foreign-language effect: thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases.

Would you make the same decisions in a foreign language as you would in your native tongue? It may be intuitive that people would make the same choices regardless of the language they are using, or that the difficulty of using a foreign language would make decisions less systematic. We discovered, however, that the opposite is true: Using a foreign language reduces decision-making biases. Four experiments show that the framing effect disappears when choices are presented in a foreign tongue. Whereas people were risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses when choices were presented in their native tongue, they were not influenced by this framing manipulation in a foreign language. Two additional experiments show that using a foreign language reduces loss aversion, increasing the acceptance of both hypothetical and real bets with positive expected value. We propose that these effects arise because a foreign language provides greater cognitive and emotional distance than a native tongue does.

Use of a language intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy.

Vaccine hesitancy is a major global challenge facing COVID-19 immunization programs. Its main source is low public trust in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. In a preregistered experimental study, we investigated how using a foreign language when communicating COVID-19 vaccine information influences vaccine acceptance. Hong Kong Chinese residents (N = 611) received COVID-19 vaccine information either in their native Chinese or in English. English increased trust in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and, as a result, reduced vaccine hesitancy. This indicates that language can impact vaccine attitudes and demonstrate the potential of language interventions for a low cost, actionable strategy to curtail vaccine hesitancy amongst bilingual populations. Language interventions could contribute towards achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of health and well-being.

Young children enlarge the pie: Antecedents of negotiation skills.

Negotiations are critical to interpersonal interactions, yet little is known about how the conceptual skills that support successful negotiations develop in childhood and across societies. Here, we presented 384 3-10-year-old children in the United States and India with tasks that measured children's understanding that people can value the same resources differently (Experiments 1-4) and that underlying interests motivate people's stated positions (Experiment 5). In Experiments 1 and 2, children participated in a third-person resource distribution task. Children distributed resources (candies) to two targets who valued resources differently: absolute preferences (liking A but disliking B) or relative preferences (liking both but preferring A to B). By age 5, children differentiated relative from absolute preferences. Experiments 3 and 4 presented a first-person variant of the same task. In trials involving a conflict in which both the child and the target preferred the same resource, U.S. children prioritized their own preferences, whereas Indian children prioritized the targets' preferences. In Experiment 5, all participants from the previous studies participated in an additional task in which two people wanted a single resource, an orange, but their interests differed-one wanted the pulp to make juice and one wanted the peel to make cake. With age, children increasingly proposed the value-maximizing option of splitting the peel from the pulp, rather than halving the orange. Notably, even the youngest Indian children chose the value-maximizing option. Our findings outline the development of two antecedents to successful negotiations and highlight the disparate role of self-interest across cultural contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The extreme illusion of understanding.

Though speakers and listeners monitor communication success, they systematically overestimate it. We report an extreme illusion of understanding that exists even without shared language. Native Mandarin Chinese speakers overestimated how well native English-speaking Americans understood what they said in Chinese, even when they were informed that the listeners knew no Chinese. These listeners also believed they understood the intentions of the Chinese speakers much more than they actually did. This extreme illusion impacts theories of speech monitoring and may be consequential in real-life, where miscommunication is costly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Honesty Speaks a Second Language.

Theories of dishonest behavior implicitly assume language independence. Here, we investigated this assumption by comparing lying by people using a foreign language versus their native tongue. Participants rolled a die and were paid according to the outcome they reported. Because the outcome was private, they could lie to inflate their profit without risk of repercussions. Participants performed the task either in their native language or in a foreign language. With native speakers of Hebrew, Korean, Spanish, and English, we discovered that, on average, people inflate their earnings less when they use a foreign language. The outcome is explained by a dual system account that suggests that self-serving dishonesty is an automatic tendency, which is supported by a fast and intuitive system. Because using a foreign language is less intuitive and automatic, it might engage more deliberation and reduce the temptation to lie. These findings challenge theories of ethical behavior to account for the role of the language in shaping ethical behavior.

When and Why People Evaluate Negative Reciprocity as More Fair Than Positive Reciprocity.

If you are kind to me, I am likely to reciprocate and doing so feels fair. Many theories of social exchange assume that such reciprocity and fairness are well aligned with one another. We argue that this correspondence between reciprocity and fairness is restricted to interpersonal dyads and does not govern more complex multilateral interactions. When multiple people are involved, reciprocity leads to partiality, which may be seen as unfair by outsiders. We report seven studies, conducted with people from the United States, in which participants were asked to evaluate situations involving resource distribution in contexts such as economic games, government, and the workplace. Specifically, we find that equal resource distribution in multilateral interactions is seen as more fair than engaging in reciprocity. We also find that negative reciprocity is seen as more fair than positive reciprocity in these multilateral situations because positive reciprocity is perceived as based in favoritism. We rule out alternative explanations and demonstrate that there are contexts where favoritism is not viewed as unfair. These findings are important for theories of fairness and reciprocity as they demonstrate the central role of perceived partiality in the evaluation of multi-party resource allocation.

The influence of native language in shaping judgment and choice.

As a result of globalization, millions of people operate in a language that they comprehend well but is not their native tongue. This paper focuses on how the nativeness of the language of a communication influences judgments and decisions. We review studies that compare decision making while people use a native language to when they use a nonnative language they understand well. The evidence shows that a nonnative language decreases the impact that emotions and socio-moral norms have on users, thereby reducing well-known judgmental biases and norm-related behavior. This effect of nonnative or foreign language brings to light the important role that the native language plays routinely in judgment and decision making. It suggests that the native language is not a simple carrier of meaning. Instead, it reveals that our native language serves as a carrier of emotions and socio-moral norms which in turn govern judgments and choices.

On the reliability of the foreign language effect on risk-taking.

People consider choices that involve risk on a daily basis. In principle, willingness to take risks should be independent of the language used while considering the available options. However, research has shown that using a foreign language can increase willingness to take risks, presumably because a foreign language is less emotional. Here, we investigate the robustness of this effect of language on risk by varying participant language background and methodological design features. In addition, we investigate whether using a foreign language increases risk-seeking behaviour in general, or whether it promotes a more strategic approach to risk. Four experiments reveal mixed results regarding the effect that using a foreign language has on risk-taking. Experiment 1 clearly shows that using a foreign language increases strategic risk-taking compared with using a native tongue. In contrast, Experiments 2 and 3 find no effect of the native-ness of language on risk-taking. Experiment 4 supports the idea that using a foreign language promotes risk-taking in general compared with using a native language. We discuss these mixed results in the context of previous findings and suggest potential directions for future research to clarify the effect of language on risk-taking.

The role of intentions and outcomes in the foreign language effect on moral judgements.

We explore the origin of the foreign language effect on moral judgements by assessing whether language context alters the weight given to intentions and outcomes during moral judgement. Specifically, we investigated whether foreign language contexts, compared with native ones, may lead people to focus more on the outcomes of an action and less on the intentions behind it. We report two studies in which participants read scenarios in which the actor's intentions and the resulting consequences were manipulated. As previously shown, people considered both the actor's intentions and the action's outcomes when assessing the damage, cause, moral wrongness, responsibility, and punishment deserved. However, although the foreign language context reduced the impact of intentions on damage assessment, the overall effect of intention and outcomes on these variables was mainly the same in the foreign and the native language contexts. We conclude that differential weighting of intentions and outcomes is unlikely to account for the impact of foreign language use on moral judgement.

Reciprocity is not give and take: asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts.

Unlike economic exchange, social exchange has no well-defined "value." It is based on the norm of reciprocity, in which giving and taking are to be repaid in equivalent measure. Although giving and taking are colloquially assumed to be equivalent actions, we demonstrate that they produce different patterns of reciprocity. In five experiments utilizing a dictator game, people reciprocated in like measure to apparently prosocial acts of giving, but reciprocated more selfishly to apparently antisocial acts of taking, even when the objective outcomes of the acts of giving and taking were identical. Additional results demonstrate that acts of giving in social exchanges are perceived as more generous than objectively identical acts of taking, that taking tends to escalate, and that the asymmetry in reciprocity is not due to gaining versus losing resources. Reciprocity appears to operate on an exchange rate that assigns value to the meaning of events, in a fashion that encourages prosocial exchanges.

In the mood to get over yourself: mood affects theory-of-mind use.

Understanding others' behavior often involves attributing mental states to them by using one's "theory of mind." We argue that using theory of mind to recognize differences between one's own perspective and another's perspective is a deliberate process of inference that may be influenced by incidental mood. Because sadness is associated with more systematic and deliberate processing whereas happiness is associated with more heuristic processing, we predicted that theory-of-mind use would be facilitated by sadness compared with happiness. Two experiments supported this prediction, demonstrating that participants were more likely to utilize knowledge about others to make inferences about their mental states when they were induced to feel sad than when they were induced to feel happy. These results provide both theoretical insight into the psychological mechanisms that govern theory of mind as well as practical insight into a common source of variability in its use.

Using a foreign language reduces mental imagery.

Mental imagery plays a significant role in guiding how we feel, think, and even behave. These mental simulations are often guided by language, making it important to understand what aspects of language contribute to imagery vividness and consequently to the way we think. Here, we focus on the native-ness of language and present evidence that using a foreign language leads to less vivid mental imagery than using a native tongue. In Experiment 1, participants using a foreign language reported less vivid imagery of sensory experiences such as sight and touch than those using their native tongue. Experiment 2 provided an objective behavioral measure, showing that muted imagery reduced accuracy when judging the similarity of shapes of imagined objects. Lastly, Experiment 3 demonstrated that this reduction in mental imagery partly accounted for the previously observed foreign language effects in moral choice. Together, the findings suggest that our mental images change when using a foreign tongue, leading to downstream consequences for how we make decisions.