No abstract

Background: Two-hundred one college undergraduates completed four nonverbal interference tasks (Simon, spatial Stroop, vertical Stroop, and flanker) and trait scales of self-control and impulsivity. Regression analyses tested 11 predictors of the composite interference scores derived from three of the four tasks and each task separately. The purpose of the study was to examine the relationships between laboratory measures of self-control, self-report measures, and the degree to which control might be related to extensive experience in activities that logically require self-control. Results: Fluid intelligence and sex were significant predictors of the composite measure, but bilingualism, music training, video gaming, mindfulness/meditation, self-control, impulsivity, SES, and physical exercise were not. Conclusions: Common laboratory measures of inhibitory control do not correlate with self-reported measures of selfcontrol or impulsivity and consequently appear to be measuring different constructs. Bilingualism, mindfulness/ meditation, playing action video games, and music training or performance provide weak and inconsistent improvements to laboratory measures of interference control. Flanker, Simon, and spatial Stroop effects should not be used or interpreted as measures of domain-general inhibitory control.

A large sample (N = 141) of college students participated in both a conjunctive visual search task and an ambiguous figures task that have been used as tests of selective attention. Tests for effects of bilingualism on attentional control were conducted by both partitioning the participants into bilinguals and monolinguals and by treating bilingualism as a continuous variable, but there were no effects of bilingualism in any of the tests. Bayes factor analyses confirmed that the evidence substantially favored the null hypothesis. These new findings mesh with failures to replicate language-group differences in congruency-sequence effects, inhibition-of-return, and working memory capacity. The evidence that bilinguals are better than monolinguals at attentional control is equivocal at best.

Five recent meta-analyses of the bilingual advantage in executive functioning hypothesis have converged on the outcome that the mean effect size is very small and that the incidence of statistically significant bilingual advantages is very low (about 15% of all comparisons). Those analyses that used the PET-PEESE method to correct for publication bias show mean effect sizes that are not different from zero and sometimes negative. In contrast, van den Noort and colleagues provide a sixth review of 46 studies published before October 31, 2018, that appears to produce a very different outcome, namely that more than half the studies yield clear support for the bilingual advantage hypothesis. We show that the deviance is due in part to search terms that yielded far fewer relevant studies, but more importantly to a subjective method of evaluating the results of each study that enables confirmation biases on the part of study authors and meta-analysts to substantially distort the objective pattern of results. A seventh meta-analysis, by Armstrong and colleagues, reports significant bilingual advantages of g = 0.48 for 32 samples using Simon and Stroop colour–word interference tasks that tested older adults. However, all effects were entered into the funnel plots as positive even though many were negative (bilingual disadvantages). This and other striking anomalies are consistent with the view that confirmation bias can suspend critical judgement and promulgate errors. Meta-analyses that use preregistration and a many-labs collaboration can better control for both publication and experimenter biases.

No abstract