Week 6 - linguistic relativity

Question 1

trolley problem

Answer 1

• Utilitarian = promoting the greatest happiness in the greatest number of people
• Your morals depend on your language

Question 2

linguistic relativity (4)

Answer 2

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)

Question 3

linguistic determinism (4)

Answer 3

o Strong version of linguistic relativity
o Language determines thought processes
o Language categories limit and determine cognitive categories
o Language = thoughts

Question 4

does language influence thought?

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

bilinguals are often said to have certain advantages (4)

Answer 5

 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

Question 6

is there a bilingual advantage: reasons why an effect can be found (4)

Answer 6

• 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)

Question 7

loss aversion in L2

Answer 7

o More reliable effect
o Keysar, Hayakawa & Gyu An (2012)
 Gain-frame vs loss-frame
 Using a foreign language reduces decision-making biases

Question 8

foreign language and emotional levelling (4)

Answer 8

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)

Question 9

de Langhe et al. (2011)

Answer 9

link between emotion and second language

Question 10

de Langhe et al. (2011): motivation

Answer 10

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)?

Question 11

de Langhe et al. (2011): hypotheses (2)

Answer 11

o L1 words are experienced as more emotionally intense

o L2 words are rated as emotionally stronger

Question 12

de Langhe et al. (2011): previous research and scientific gap

Answer 12

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?

Question 13

anchor contraction effect

Answer 13

The systematic tendency to report more intense emotions when answering questions in a L2 than in the L1

Question 14

de Langhe et al. (2011): prediction

Answer 14

o Main effect of language

 L2 scales result in higher scores on emotional intensity than L1 scales

Question 15

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 1

Answer 15

	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

Question 16

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 2

Answer 16

 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

Question 17

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 3

Answer 17

 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

Question 18

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 4

Answer 18

 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

Question 19

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 5

Answer 19

 Bipolar scales
• Emotional vs non-emotional
 Result: ratings more intense in L2 than in L1 but only for emotional scale

Question 20

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 6

Answer 20

 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

Question 21

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 7

Answer 21

 Likert scale
 To what extent did the session make you feel happy/sad?
 Result: once again confirmation of ACE (scores more extreme in L2)

Question 22

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 8

Answer 22

	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

Question 23

de Langhe et al. (2011): study 9

Answer 23

	Colour intensity
	Design 2x2
•	Scale language: Dutch or English
•	Help: colour or not
•	Between-subjects
	Result: presence of colour cues can eliminate ACE

Question 24

de Langhe et al. (2011): summary

Answer 24

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

Question 25

de Langhe et al. (2011): limitations

Answer 25

 Only university students tested
 Mostly Dutch and English compared
• Small difference between L1 and L2
 Emotions and colours have different meaning in different cultures

Question 26

de Langhe et al. (2011): conclusion

Answer 26

o ACE is another form of response bias

o Must have significant consequences for intercultural and cross-cultural research

Question 26

de Langhe et al. (2011): why nine experiments?

Answer 26

 Replicability
 Different constraints on the findings
 Understanding what is going on with the phenomena