Language switching – but not foreign language use per se – reduces the framing effect
Y. Oganian*1,2, C.W. Korn*1,3, H.R.Heekeren1
Supplementary Online Material
1)
Analysis of the effects of multilingualism on framing in Experiment 1
The participants in our sample mostly spoke more than one language, as is typical for
German university students. To investigate whether this multilingualism might be the reason
for the discrepancy between our and previous studies, we investigated the framing effect as a
function of the number of languages spoken by our participants.
For each participant, this analysis included all FLs, for which proficiency was at least 2
(simple sentences, basic conversation). This level was also the minimal requirement for
participation in the FL conditions of the experiment. We split the participants into three
conditions: bilinguals, trilinguals, and multilinguals (i.e., participants knowing 3 or more (up
to 7) languages). This grouping allowed for sufficient a number of participants to test for
framing effects in each group (see Table S1). A logistic regression with the number of
languages spoken (2, 3, more than 3) showed a main effect of frame (p < .001) but no effects
of the number of language spoken or of the test language. Moreover, the framing effect was
significant when tested separately within each group and for each test language (all
Bonferroni-corrected p’s < .01). Thus, the framing effect in our sample is independent of the
number of languages spoken by the participants.
We would also like to note that English was the best foreign language for the majority
of our participants. Thus we could not test whether the framing effect would be affected
differently when posed in a subordinate FL independently of the effect of the FL employed.
1
Table S1. Summary of results for the Asian disease problem in Experiments 1 by test
language, multilingualism and condition.
n in condition
% sure answer
Test
Number of FL
language
spoken
Gain
Loss
Gain
Loss
1 FL
33
34
77
35
42
**
2 FLs
39
51
67
38
29
**
> 2 FLs
51
39
59
38
21
+
1 FL
47
57
64
35
29
**
2 FLs
38
33
76
30
46
**
> 2 FLs
27
24
78
46
32
*
1 FL
0
0
-
-
-
2 FLs
45
45
67
42
25
*
> 2 FLs
83
96
65
40
25
**
German
English
French
Gain -
sign.
Loss
** p <.01; * p<.05; + p = .05
FL: foreign language. Data are given as counts or percentages. * p <.05
In summary the number and level of FL spoken did not affect the magnitude of the
framing effect in our sample. Moreover, we would like to note that at least some of the
samples reported previously (Keysar et al., 2012, Costa et al., 2014) were likely to contained
multilinguals as well as true bilinguals, in particular when English was not one of the
languages tested or when participants originated from a region with several official languages.
2)
Re-analysis of the framing effect data from Study 1 of Costa et al. (Costa,
Foucart, Arnon, Aparici, & Apesteguia (2014), “Piensa” twice: on the foreign language
effect in decision making. Cognition 130, 236-254, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.010).
Costa et al. (2014) investigated the framing effect in Spanish native speakers of English
and Arabic native speakers of Hebrew in a 2 (test language: native (L1) vs. foreign (FL)) by 2
2
(frame: gain vs. loss) factorial between-subjects design. They reported a reduction of the
framing effect by 50 % (see Table S1) when participants answered the question in their FL
(15%) as compared to their L1 (34%). However, they did not assess the significance of this
difference directly by testing the interaction effect of frame and test language. Rather, they
report simple χ2 tests, assessing the significance of the difference between gain and loss
frames in each of the test language conditions separately. This approach reflects a common
problem in the neuroscientific and psychological literature: Many studies report individual
t-tests but not interaction analyses using ANOVAs limiting the interpretability of their
findings (Nieuwenhuis, Forstman, & Wagenmakers, 2011).
Nevertheless, Costa et al. (2014) reported all the Asian Disease problem data reported in
their paper (Table S1). To assess the validity of their claim, we reanalyzed these data in
multiple logistic regression analyses, including the main effects of language and frame as well
as their linear interaction effect. We pooled data across groups to gain power for the
interaction effect. The logistic regression showed a significant effect of frame, beta = 0.77,
95% CI [0.04, 1.25], χ² (1) = 4.31, p = .04, due to overall more choices of the risky option in
the loss frame. There was no main effect of language, however, and the interaction effect of
frame and language only reached a trend level (p = .07) despite the large number of
participants (N=376). Note, that the interaction effect is even smaller when tested separately
in native speakers of Spanish (p = .19) and Arabic (p = .19).
In summary, although there is a clear numerical difference in the framing effect between
the L1 and FL conditions, there is no statistical evidence for a difference between the two
conditions in the data. This is also supported by the significance of the framing effect in both
conditions, when assessed separately. We acknowledge that the lack of a significant
interaction effect in this data set might be the result of insufficient participant numbers and
would possibly become significant if more data were collected.
3
Table S1. Percentage of sure responses in the Asian disease problem for the
Spanish/English group, and for the Arab/Hebrew group. Table adopted from Costa et al.
(2014).
Gain condition
Loss condition
Difference
Sign.
Test
Gain –
N
language
n
% sure
N
% sure
Loss
Spanish/
L1
124
62
68 %
62
34 %
34 %
*
English
FL
123
61
67 %
62
50 %
17 %
n.s.
Arabic/
L1
69
34
76 %
35
43 %
33 %
*
Hebrew
FL
60
30
73 %
30
63 %
10 %
n.s.
L1
193
96
71 %
97
37 %
34 %
*
FL
183
91
69 %
92
54 %
15 %
*
overall
* p < .05
3)
Results for the Asian disease task for originally collected data set of
Experiment 2.
As depicted in Table S2, participants’ behavior in the first part of the classroom data set
(N = 258) was qualitatively the same as in the complete data set (N = 118). Specifically, the
framing effect was significant and of comparable effect size in both non-switch conditions,
independently of the task language. Moreover, and crucial to our research question, the
framing effect was strongly reduced to non-significance in both switch conditions, with a
somewhat larger residual effect when the actual task language was participants’ L1.
Table S2. Summary of results for the Asian Disease problem in original data set of
Experiment 2, by group and condition.
4
Language
Switch
Asian disease problem
n in condition
% sure answer
sign.
L1
Gain
Loss
Gain
Loss
Gain - Loss
46
41
67
38
29
*
27
23
74
31
43
*
25
33
72
60
12
n.s.
34
29
45
47
-2
n.s.
non-switch
FL
L1
switch
FL
5