Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moral Judgement in Early Bilinguals: Language Dominance Influences Responses to Moral Dilemmas

Wong, Galston, Ng, Bee Chin·2018·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01070PMC PMC6032433
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Foreign-Language effect (FLe) on morality describes how late bilinguals make different decisions on moral judgements, when presented in either their native or foreign language. However the relevance of this phenomenon to early bilinguals, where a language's "nativeness" is less distinct, is unknown. This study aims to verify the effect of early bilinguals' languages on their moral decisions and examine how language experience may influence these decisions. Eighty-six early English-Chinese bilinguals were asked to perform a moral dilemmas task consisting of personal and impersonal dilemmas, in either English or Mandarin Chinese. Information on language experience factors were also collected from the participants. Findings suggest that early bilinguals do show evidence of a language effect on their moral decisions, which is dependent on how dominant they are in the language. Particularly, the more dominant participants were in their tested language, the larger the difference between their personal and impersonal dilemma response choice. In light of these findings, the study discusses the need to re-examine how we conceptualize the FLe phenomenon and its implications on bilinguals' moral judgement. It also addresses the importance of treating bilingualism as multidimensional, rather than a unitary variable.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01070

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Utilitarian ratings (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) by dilemma scenarios and language (English/Mandarin Chinese). Error bars represent standard errors of the means.
Figure 1 Utilitarian ratings (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) by dilemma scenarios and language (English/Mandarin Chinese). Error bars represent standard errors of the means.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Utilitarian ratings (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) by dilemma scenarios and personal force (personal/impersonal). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. ***p < 0.001.
Figure 2 Utilitarian ratings (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) by dilemma scenarios and personal force (personal/impersonal). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. ***p < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Utilitarian ratings (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) of the Burning Building, Organ Transplant and Trolley/Footbridge scenarios by personal force (personal/impersonal) and language (English/Mandarin Chinese). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. *p < 0.05.
Figure 3 Utilitarian ratings (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) of the Burning Building, Organ Transplant and Trolley/Footbridge scenarios by personal force (personal/impersonal) and language (English/Mandarin Chinese). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. *p < 0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Mean scenario contrast scores by language dominance groups. A higher score indicates a larger average difference in utilitarian ratings between an impersonal minus personal choice of action in the same scenario type. Error bars represent standard errors of the group means.
Figure 4 Mean scenario contrast scores by language dominance groups. A higher score indicates a larger average difference in utilitarian ratings between an impersonal minus personal choice of action in the same scenario type. Error bars represent standard errors of the group means.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Birdsong, 2012, Bilingual Language Profile: An Easy-to-Use Instrument to Assess Bilingualism.
  2. De Houwer, 1995, Bilingual language acquisition, 219
  3. McLaughlin, 1984, Second Language Acquisition in Childhood. Vol 2: Pre-School Children, 2nd Edn
  4. Norton, 2000, Investment, acculturation, and language loss, 443
  5. Schneider, 2002, E-Prime: User's Guide

Cited by

See all 31

Metadata

Authors
Wong, G., & Ng, B. C.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2018-06-28
Volume
9
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01070
PMC
PMC6032433
Cited by
31
References
39
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)
Funders
Nanyang Technological University (RG159/14)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.