This study investigates how a foreign language impacts social norms. We tested this by comparing the magnitude of response differences between norm-violating and norm-adhering behaviors in native language versus foreign language. In experiment 1, participants indicated the acceptability of third-person black and white lies in either their native or foreign language on a Likert scale. In experiment 2, participants indicated their first-person intentions to tell black and white lies on a Likert scale. Experiment 3 conceptually replicated experiment 1 on a slider scale, testing white lies and blunt truths. In experiment 4, participants provided dichotomous yes–no decisions to tell black and white lies. Results revealed a significant reduction of acceptability ratings in experiments 1 and 3 while only showing such a trend in experiments 2 and 4, suggesting language impacts particularly descriptive social norms. Collectively, these findings provide insight into how a foreign language diminishes the influence of social norms.

Bilinguals experience diminished emotion when using their foreign compared with their native language. The diminished emotion has been shown to lead to more lenient moral evaluations in a foreign language. Here we show that non-native speakers of English are less sensitive to emotional mitigating circumstances of a crime than native speakers, presumably because of the diminished experience emotion. This can lead non-native speakers to provide harsher, rather than more lenient, evaluations. Native and non-native speakers of English recommended sentence duration for crimes committed because of mitigating emotional circumstances (e.g., fraud to pay spouse's medical treatment) or for selfish reasons (e.g., buying luxury goods). Native English speakers differentiated more between the two types of scenarios than non-native speakers did. The study thus provides preliminary evidence that processing information in a foreign language can influence decisions, and that the directionality of the effect depends on the role of emotion in the context.

Foreign language can either enhance decision-making by triggering more deliberation or worsen it due to cognitive overload. We tested these two hypotheses in one response bias: acquiescence. In three experiments, 413 participants made dichotomous decisions about whether 100 personality traits described them or not. Participants showed more acquiescence in a foreign language (vs. native), giving more certifying responses when deciding on known traits. Reaction time results suggest that a foreign language particularly impacts rejection more than certification of their comprehension. These findings support the cognitive overload hypothesis and provide valuable insights for the influence of language on response bias.

Previous research has shown that bilingual speakers may be more tolerant to ambiguity, they might perceive situations of ambiguity more interesting, challenging and desirable (e.g., Dewaele & Li, 2013). To our knowledge, no data are available addressing the question whether the language in use can have an effect on the personality trait of tolerance of ambiguity (ToA). This study investigated whether and how reading statements in a second language (L2), as opposed to the native language (L1), affects ToA. 387 Italian–English bilingual adults completed a questionnaire measuring levels of ToA either in English or Italian. Results revealed that processing information in L2 promoted higher scores of ToA overall and in sentences that were related to challenging perspectives and change. Age, gender and L2 proficiency were significant predictors of higher ToA scores. This study offers new evidence that processing information in a L2 can affect tolerance of ambiguous situations.

We examined moral judgments in three types of language: a native national language (Italian), a non-native foreign language (English), and a native regional language (Venetian, oral and colloquial). We used the Moral Foundation Questionnaire to investigate cross-linguistic differences in multiple aspects of morality. Higher scores in the Harm, Purity and Fairness dimensions were obtained in the foreign and the regional language with respect to the national language. In addition, higher scores in the Ingroup dimension were obtained in the foreign language with respect to the native language. The effects of language on morality can thus be quite pervasive, involving a variety of aspects of morality. The differences we observed across these languages are explained in terms of their sociolinguistics – specifically, the greater use of national languages with moral values and beliefs. It is proposed that language effects arise because the language that is used activates information associated with it.

The Moral Foreign Language Effect (MFLE) is characterized by increased utilitarian decision-making when bilinguals respond to moral dilemmas in their foreign language. While previous research has given us a better understanding of this phenomenon, few studies have investigated how foreign language experience influences the MFLE. The present study investigated whether differences in foreign language proficiency, immersion, or dominance modulated the emergence of the MFLE. Mandarin–English bilingual young adults responded to a series of moral dilemmas in either their native or foreign language. Participants also provided ratings of permissibility and distress after reading each dilemma. We report a dilemma-specific MFLE that was modulated by differences in foreign language experience. Most significant was the observation that separable dimensions of foreign language experience interact when modulating the MFLE in a manner that is dilemma-specific. These findings emphasize the importance of considering differences in foreign language experience across multiple dimensions when investigating the MFLE.

Since globalization, using second languages (L2) to make decisions about future is more common than ever. In this study, we tested the merged effect of two language features, i.e., the future-time reference (FTR) and L2, on intertemporal decision and its indirect mediators, future orientation, and subjective future perception. As a pair of languages with different FTR, English (strong-FTR) has a clear grammatical separation between present and future, while Chinese (weak-FTR) does not. Here, Chinese first language (L1) speakers made intertemporal decisions using either Chinese (L1) or English (L2). Across three studies (N = 1022) and an internal meta-analysis, we found that using a strong-FTR L2 did not change participants’ intertemporal preference but did reduce their future orientation. These findings highlight a holistic perspective merging language features, outcome variables and measurement methods. These findings also imply a need for caution to use second language as nudge strategy in intertemporal decision-making.

The moral foreign-language effect (M-FLE) translates into more utilitarian choices, even when given the option of self-sacrifice. We explore the M-FLE in 85 children, who were presented with seven moral dilemmas varying in utilitarianism, aversiveness, and whether they allowed the option of self-sacrifice; 42 answered to the dilemmas in their native language (Spanish), and 43 in a foreign language (English). Participants were more utilitarian and willing to sacrifice themselves when using their foreign language. Educational and developmental implications are discussed, especially in the context of bilingual education.

According to the “reduced emotionality hypothesis”, we are less emotionally driven when reasoning in a foreign language (FL) than in a native language (NL). We examined whether this foreign language effect (FLe) extends to the way we perceive motivational quotes (i.e., encouraging slogans conveying a profound and inspirational message): we expected FL participants to rate motivational quotes as less profound than NL participants. Strikingly, we observed the opposite: FL participants found motivational quotes more profound than NL participants, even after controlling for potential confounders (e.g., IQ, reasoning style). Both FL and NL participants gave similarly low profundity ratings to pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (i.e., meaningless sentences sounding profound), indicating that the message must be meaningful for the FLe to arise. We propose that, like space or time, language could promote psychological distance. This favours a focus on the background of a message to indicate profoundness.

The moral foreign language effect (MFLE) describes how people’s decisions may change when a moral dilemma is presented in either their native (NL) or foreign language (FL). Growing attention is being directed to unpacking what aspects of bilingualism may influence the MFLE, though with mixed or inconclusive results. The current study aims to bridge this gap by adopting a conceptualization of bilingualism that frames this construct as a composite and continuous measure. In a between-group analysis, we asked 196 Italian–English bilinguals to perform a moral dilemmas task in either their NL (i.e., Italian) or FL (i.e., English). In a within-group analysis, we evaluated the effects of FL age of acquisition, FL proficiency, and language dominance – all measured as continuous variables – on moral decision-making. Overall, findings indicate that differences within bilinguals’ language experience impact moral decisions in an FL. However, the effect of the linguistic factors considered was not ubiquitous across dilemmas, and not always emerged into a MFLE. In light of these results, our study addresses the importance of treating bilingualism as multidimensional, rather than a unitary variable. It also discusses the need to reconceptualize the FLE and its implications on moral decision-making.

The present study investigated the foreign language effect within an altruistic decision making process. Chinese–English bilinguals made altruistic decisions in their native (L1: Chinese) and second language (L2: English). The decisions were framed in two ways: either as “not to harm” (harm frame) or as “to help” the other person (help frame) at one's economic cost. Behavioral results suggest that bilinguals might behave more altruistically in the harm frame than the help frame (i.e., framing effect) in their native language but not in their foreign language. Electrophysiological results show that the modulation of the framing effect in the native versus foreign language originated in the early ERP components (N1 and N2) and did not present in the late positive potential (LPP). These findings suggest the foreign language effect most likely results from the reduced emotional reaction in a foreign compared to the native language.

Applied linguistic work claims that multilinguals’ non-native languages interfere with one another based on similarities in cognitive factors like proficiency or age of acquisition. Two experiments explored how trilinguals regulate control of native- and non-native-language words. Experiment 1 tested 46 Dutch–English–French trilinguals in a monitoring task. Participants decided if phonemes were present in the target language name of a picture, phonemes of non-target language translations resulted in longer response times and more false alarms compared to phonemes not present in any translation (Colomé, 2001). The second language (English) interfered more than the first (Dutch) when trilinguals monitored in their third language (French). In Experiment 2, 95 bilinguals learned an artificial language to explore the possibility that the language from which a bilingual learns a third language provides practice managing known-language interference. Language of instruction modulated results, suggesting that learning conditions may reduce interference effects previously attributed to cognitive factors.

This study examines whether the foreign language effect mitigates reactions to value-inconsistent sociopolitical content. We examined 69 English–Spanish bilinguals and 31 Spanish–English heritage bilinguals, half of whom did the experiment in their native language and half in their second language. Participants were administered a survey in which trial emotiveness was manipulated by using the quantifiers some and all (e.g., Some Trump supporters are racists vs. All Trump supporters are racists). The some-types (n = 30) served as a baseline for the all-types (n = 30). After each target, participants rated their willingness to be prosocial (e.g., holding the door for a stranger) on a scale of 1–7, 1 being totally agree and 7 being totally disagree. Our results suggest that processing emotional information in a second language is less emotional than in a first language and that such a decrease in emotionality results in the neutralization of offense taken. However, individual differences in linguistic profiles across participants, as well as contextual framing, lead to discrete value judgments. Proficiency, learner type, political affiliation, and context type affect willingness to engage in prosocial behavior. As a group, the bilinguals showed no decrease in their willingness to engage in such behaviors, regardless of context type; speakers of higher proficiency and stronger political values increase prosocial sentiment; and lower proficiency and weaker views lead to neutral prosocial sentiment.