Week 6 - linguistic relativity Flashcards
trolley problem
- Utilitarian = promoting the greatest happiness in the greatest number of people
- Your morals depend on your language
linguistic relativity (4)
language shaped by environment
o Weak version of linguistic relativity
o Language influences thinking and some non-linguistic behaviour
o Language drwas attention to other things
o Soblin’s “thinking for speaking” (1996)
linguistic determinism (4)
o Strong version of linguistic relativity
o Language determines thought processes
o Language categories limit and determine cognitive categories
o Language = thoughts
does language influence thought?
- Grammatical aspect: the temporal distribution of an event
o For example: simple past tense vs past progressive
o Anderson, Matlock, Fausey & Spivey (2008)
With past progressive, character placed nearer path middle and slower mouse movements - Cross-linguistic differences in ongoingness
o Athanasopoulos & Bylund (2013)
English: ongoingness
Swedish: endpoints - Language and eyewitness testimony
o Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Car accident experiment
Speed of cars during crash
Smashed glass - Cross-linguistic differences in eyewitness memory
o Fausey & Boroditsky (2011)
Agentive: intentional event
• English: agentive descriptions typical
Non-agentive: accidental event
• Spanish: non-agentive more common
English people could name the agent in the accidental event type more often than the Spanish
Spanish people less equipped to be a witness to a crime? - Grammatical gender
o Boroditsky, Schmidt & Phillips (2002)
Grammatical gender affects object descriptions
o Phillips & Boroditsky (2002)
Objects considered more similar when they match in grammatical gender
bilinguals are often said to have certain advantages (4)
Better executive control (?)
• Updating
• Switching
• Inhibition
Affected by Alzheimer’s disease at a later date or to a lesser degree (Woumans et al., 2015) (?)
Better metalinguistic cognition (better able to talk about language, better storyteller, better at reading) (?)
(?) = debatable whether it is true
o Bilingualism and multitasking
Doing language tasks while driving (Telner et al., 2008)
Bilinguals demonstrated fewer decrements to driving performance when speaking on the phone compared to monolinguals
is there a bilingual advantage: reasons why an effect can be found (4)
- The published database is biased (filedrawer problem)
- Differences due to other causes (not controlled for certain factors)
- DVs not measuring executive function (tasks not the right tasks)
- DVs not correlate (no convergent validity)
loss aversion in L2
o More reliable effect
o Keysar, Hayakawa & Gyu An (2012)
Gain-frame vs loss-frame
Using a foreign language reduces decision-making biases
foreign language and emotional levelling (4)
o Less emotional response to advertising messages (Putoni et al., 2008)
o Less emotional force in swearwords and taboo words (Dewaele, 2004)
o Reduced fear conditioning (García-Palacios et al., 2018)
o Reduced truth-bias in lie detection (Elliot & Leach, 2016)
de Langhe et al. (2011)
link between emotion and second language
de Langhe et al. (2011): motivation
o Globalisation: increasing number of people use a second language, especially English
o An increasing number of marketing research is based on data from second language speakers
o What is the influence of the second language (L2)?
de Langhe et al. (2011): hypotheses (2)
o L1 words are experienced as more emotionally intense
o L2 words are rated as emotionally stronger
de Langhe et al. (2011): previous research and scientific gap
o Anchor points on a scale can influence ratings
See slides
o Emotions are experienced more strongly in L1 than in L2
Emotions are linked to autobiographical memories
More memories linked with native language
- Scientific gap
o Should measuring instruments be corrected for respondents who are responding in their second language due to the systematic deviation of L2?
anchor contraction effect
The systematic tendency to report more intense emotions when answering questions in a L2 than in the L1
de Langhe et al. (2011): prediction
o Main effect of language
L2 scales result in higher scores on emotional intensity than L1 scales
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 1
People had to rate chocolate Role of stereotypes Design: 2x2 • Between subjects • Native language: French or Dutch • Scale language: L1 or L2 Each participant exposed to one condition: chocolate tasting and evaluation • Four conditions Five emotion questions Trilinguals • Instructions in English to avoid priming for French or Dutch Results • Responses in L2 significantly more emotional than in L1 • No difference between French and Dutch
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 2
Replication with wider array of emotions
Does ACE occur similarly for positive and negative valence?
Participants
• L1 Dutch and L2 English
Mixed design
• Between subject factor: language (English or Dutch)
• Within subject factor: emotion rating (positive or negative)
• Watched 5 minute movie and rated 5 positive and 5 negative emotions
Results: emotion intensity
• ACE has been replicated
• Range of emotions used
• No difference between positive and negative emotions
Discussion
• English is closely related to Dutch so this is conservative evidence of ACE
• ACE is not a result of language proficiency because all words were single and easily translated
• No difference between cognates was found
• Post-test: ACE larger for emotions with larger L1-L2 intensity difference
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 3
Testing the role of emotional intensity
Participants: Dutch students
Evaluating ads
Results replicated: higher ACE in L2
Mediation analysis (see slides)
• Language -> experienced emotion of anchor: anchors rated as less intense in L2
• Experienced emotion of anchor -> ad ratings: when anchor perceived as less emotionally intense, ad ratings are higher
• Language -> ad ratings: ad ratings higher in L2
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 4
Background
• Emotions experienced most intensely in L1
• Emotions scored most intensely in L2
• Adverts should be perceived as more emotional in L1 than in L2
• Ratings should be lower when scales are in L1 than in L2
• This applies only to emotional stimuli
Mixed design
• 3x2x2
• Appraisal: emotional intensity, informativeness, quality of experience
• Ad language: L1 or L2 (Dutch or English)
• Scale language: L1 or L2 (Dutch or English)
• Within-subjects factors: appraisal and ad language
• Between-subjects factor: scale language
Results
• Ratings are higher in L2
• Ads are rated more emotional in L1
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 5
Bipolar scales
• Emotional vs non-emotional
Result: ratings more intense in L2 than in L1 but only for emotional scale
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 6
Is effect due to labels of the poles (anchors) only?
Design
• Scale language: Dutch (L1) or English (L2)
• Verbal labels: end points or all points
Result: main effect of only language
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 7
Likert scale
To what extent did the session make you feel happy/sad?
Result: once again confirmation of ACE (scores more extreme in L2)
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 8
Non-verbal cues Can ACE be corrected for? Design 2x2 • Language: Dutch or English • Help: emoticons or not • Between-subjects Predicted interaction: the ACE effect is weakened by the emoticons Result: presence of non-verbal cues can eliminate ACE
de Langhe et al. (2011): study 9
Colour intensity Design 2x2 • Scale language: Dutch or English • Help: colour or not • Between-subjects Result: presence of colour cues can eliminate ACE
de Langhe et al. (2011): summary
o Triangulation of findings – converging evidence for ACE
o Variety of studies, stimuli, built-in checks (strong external validity)
External validity: to what extent can the study be generalized to other situations?
o Implications for managers?
Use native language
Use of corrections (emoticons/colours)
o Could language understanding problems be the cause?
No
Balanced bilingual design (Study 1)
This applies only to emotion, not to other experiences
Cognates or not, makes no difference
Test subjects themselves say they did not find it difficult
de Langhe et al. (2011): limitations
Only university students tested
Mostly Dutch and English compared
• Small difference between L1 and L2
Emotions and colours have different meaning in different cultures
de Langhe et al. (2011): conclusion
o ACE is another form of response bias
o Must have significant consequences for intercultural and cross-cultural research
de Langhe et al. (2011): why nine experiments?
Replicability
Different constraints on the findings
Understanding what is going on with the phenomena
