Reasoning about other people's beliefs: Bilinguals have an advantage.
Abstract
Bilingualism can have widespread cognitive effects. In this article we investigate whether bilingualism might have an effect on adults' abilities to reason about other people's beliefs. In particular, we tested whether bilingual adults might have an advantage over monolingual adults in false-belief reasoning analogous to the advantage that has been observed with bilingual children. Using a traditional false-belief task coupled with an eye-tracking technique, we found that adults in general suffer interference from their own perspective when reasoning about other people's beliefs. However, bilinguals are reliably less susceptible to this egocentric bias than are monolinguals. Moreover, performance on the false-belief task significantly correlated with performance on an executive control task. We argue that bilinguals' early sociolinguistic sensitivity and enhanced executive control may account for their advantage in false-belief reasoning.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This pattern-bilingual advantage on conflict tasks and no difference on non-conflict tasks-has been replicated in children and adults with flanker, theory of mind, and Simon tasks.
“This pattern has been confirmed in studies of both children and adults using a flanker task (children: [74, 75]), theory of mind task (children: [76, 77]; adults: [78]), Simon task (children: [79]; adults: [44]).”
From Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain (2012) · cites this paper as [78]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind” ?
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 · Cited by 8,599 · see citing works
Brain reserve and dementia: a systematic review
VALENZUELA, M. J., & SACHDEV, P. (2006) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291705006264 · Cited by 932 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Experience with a variety of cognitive tasks across the life span increases cerebral reserve, reflecting the protective effect of intellectual exercise against cognitive decline with aging (Valenzuela & Sachdev, 2006).”
BackgroundPerspective taking in children and adults: equivalent egocentrism but differential correction
Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.002 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Language Promotes False-Belief Understanding: Evidence From Learners of a New Sign Language
Pyers, J. E., & Senghas, A. (2009) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02377.x · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
Bilingualism and the development of executive function: The role of attention
Bialystok, E. (2015) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/cdep.12116 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Yow, W. Q., & Li, X. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00164 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rubio-Fernández, P., & Glucksberg, S.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 211-217
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2039264326
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- British Academy
- Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowship (022149)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- bilingualism, false belief reasoning, theory of mind, egocentric bias, perspective taking, executive function, monolinguals, cognitive effects of bilingualism
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Attention, Culture, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Statistics as Topic, Vocabulary, Multilingualism, Theory of Mind
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review