Foreign to whom? Constraining the moral foreign language effect on bilinguals’ language experience

Abstract

The moral foreign language effect (MFLE) describes how people’s decisions may change when a moral dilemma is presented in either their native (NL) or foreign language (FL). Growing attention is being directed to unpacking what aspects of bilingualism may influence the MFLE, though with mixed or inconclusive results. The current study aims to bridge this gap by adopting a conceptualization of bilingualism that frames this construct as a composite and continuous measure. In a between-group analysis, we asked 196 Italian–English bilinguals to perform a moral dilemmas task in either their NL (i.e., Italian) or FL (i.e., English). In a within-group analysis, we evaluated the effects of FL age of acquisition, FL proficiency, and language dominance – all measured as continuous variables – on moral decision-making. Overall, findings indicate that differences within bilinguals’ language experience impact moral decisions in an FL. However, the effect of the linguistic factors considered was not ubiquitous across dilemmas, and not always emerged into a MFLE. In light of these results, our study addresses the importance of treating bilingualism as multidimensional, rather than a unitary variable. It also discusses the need to reconceptualize the FLE and its implications on moral decision-making.

Modulatory role of foreign language experience on the Moral Foreign Language Effect

“…This work adds to a growing literature investigating graded effects of separable dimensions of language experience on previously reported psycholinguistic phenomena (Privitera et al, 2022a(Privitera et al, , 2022b. We did not observe an MFLE consistently across all dilemmas, replicating the null and mixed findings of some previous studies (Čavar & Tytus, 2018;Costa et al, 2014;Del Maschio et al, 2022b;Wong & Ng, 2018). In fact, an MFLE was only observed on the Organ Transplant dilemma.…”

“…The Organ Transplant and related Surgeon and Transplant dilemmas are not widely used across previous studies (Del Maschio et al 2022a). To the best of our knowledge, only one study has reported a significant MFLE on this dilemma (Shin & Kim, 2017) with most reporting null results (Čavar & Tytus, 2018;Del Maschio et al, 2022b;Wong & Ng, 2018) although null results are contentious (Białek & Fugelsang, 2019). In the Organ Transplant dilemma, the participant is taking the perspective of a doctor who must make a choice that violates the norms associated with that role (i.e., causing harm to a patient).…”

“…Further analysis revealed that distress was not a significant mediating factor on the MFLE, suggesting that reduced emotionality may manifest only in reported distress and not impact on decision-making. However, even evidence of decreased emotionality in self-reported distress ratings is mixed, with more recent investigations reporting null results in NL/FL group comparisons (Del Maschio et al, 2022b).…”

“…As originally described by Keysar, Hayakawa, and An (2012), the FLE is a phenomenon in which bilinguals demonstrate insensitivity to framing-effects when making decisions in their foreign language (FL) compared to their native language (NL). Over the last decade, the boundary conditions of this phenomenon have been investigated across a range of decision-making tasks in diverse samples of bilinguals around the world (Circi et al 2021;Del Maschio et al 2022b). Specifically, in the context of moral decisionmaking, the Moral Foreign Language Effect (MFLE) describes the tendency for bilinguals to make more utilitarian decisions when presented with moral dilemmas in their FL (Cipolletti et al, 2016;Corey et al 2017;Costa et al 2014;Stankovic et al, 2022).…”

“…The MFLE is thought to result from decreased engagement of System I, and/or increased engagement of System II (Costa et al, 2019). Under both conditions, the presentation of a moral dilemma in an FL is expected to result in higher rates of utilitarian decisions, as well as higher ratings of permissibilitythat is, whether or not the moral violation described in the dilemma is considered acceptable (Del Maschio et al, 2022b;Geipel et al, 2015a). However, evidence in support of increased engagement of System II (i.e., the INCREASED DELIBERATION hypothesis) is limited, with most accounts supporting decreased engagement of System I (e.g., Hayakawa et al 2017).…”