Presentation
Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions | Lightning Talks
Feeling the L1 pressure: How Chinese-English Bilinguals differentially engage with betting in their two languages
Poster E32 in Poster Session E, Thursday, October 26, 10:15 am - 12:00 pm CEST, Espace Vieux-Port
Wenwen Yang1, Yufen Wei1, Guillaume Thierry1; 1Bangor University
Previous studies have suggested that bilinguals make decisions differently in different language contexts. This effect has been attributed to a reduction in emotional sensitivity in the second language. However, few studies so far have looked at differences between decisions made in good faith and deceptive ones. Here, we measured event-related potentials (ERPs) in 27 Chinese-English bilinguals as they played a computerized coin-drawing game against a virtual opponent to examine potential differences between native and foreign language contexts when they had to make betting decisions. The stimuli comprised the statements “You have a coin”/“You don't have a coin” in English (and translation equivalents in Chinese), indicating whether participants had drawn a coin or not in each trial. After knowing the outcome of a draw (Coin/No Coin), participants registered their decisions to either bet or drop. When participants drew a coin, they had to bet (Truth condition) but when they did not draw a coin, they had the choice of betting (Lie condition) or not playing (dropping). Participants were explicitly instructed to engage in strategic deception as needed to maximise their score, taking into account feedback (Accept/Reject) from the virtual opponent. The coin game was played once in a Chinese and once in an English context with language blocks counterbalanced between participants. Behaviourally, participants responded faster in a Chinese than in an English context. They responded also faster when betting than dropping if they did not have a coin. However, no significant difference across languages was found between truth and lie conditions. ERPs time-locked to the outcome of the coin draw showed that a main effect of language (250–350 ms) initially prompted by the statement in English or Chinese quickly gave way to a main effect of draw condition (450–650 ms). Conversely, ERPs elicited by participants’ decision to bet showed the reverse sequence of effects depending on the coin draw. Namely, a main effect of draw status (150–300 ms) indicated participants' differentiation between conditions ignoring language, followed by another, subsequent language main effect (300–500 ms). Furthermore, ERPs triggered by opponent feedback mirrored participants’ betting decisions, revealing a swift transition from feedback processing (100–300 ms) before a third period of language focus (450–600 ms). Taken together, the results show that early effects associated with statements provided in different languages were soon replaced by effects indexing decision-making (bet/drop) or feedback processing (Accept/Reject) with language effects resurfacing when participants anticipated a decision or outcome. This means that participants could not ignore the language context in which they found themselves and that making decisions in Chinese, their native language, appeared to cause them more concern, resulting in deeper cognitive processing indexed by more negative ERP amplitudes. This shows that bilinguals tend to process information and make decisions differently depending on the language context in which they find themselves, which may have societal implications (e.g., diplomacy, immigration, etc).
Topic Areas: Multilingualism,