Lying in a Native and Foreign Language

Introduction

Research concepts are one of the most often required courses for psychology majors. The researcher develops a research topic, executes an investigation to gather data relevant to answering the question, examines the evidence, makes conclusions, and presents the findings as part of the body of scholarly literature(Breakwell et al.,2006). This paper evaluates an article to demonstrate expert knowledge of how to apply appropriate research principles to the interpretation of a study; recognizes and describes the study’s primary strengths and flaws in a manner that demonstrates an in-depth familiarity with and ability to evaluate the characteristics of good and poor research.

Summary

In the article “Lying in a Native and Foreign Language,” Duñabeitia & Costa (2015) looked at how manipulative language influences comprehension in a foreign language. One hundred people took the task of writing true and untrue claims in choosing their native language or a second language they were learning. The variables analyzed were pupil size, speech delay, and utterance length. According to the findings, the veracity of assertions and the language used to make them appear to have cumulative effects. The opposite was true for comments made in the foreign language, which caused greater pupil dilations and longer identifying latencies associated with those made in the native language. Notably, there was no interaction between these two effects, indicating that the mental effort required to detect dishonesty does not vary much between a person’s native and second languages. The authors addressed the theoretical ramifications of these findings.

Evaluation

The authors analyzed their observations following research indicating less emotionality in a non-native language, which may have contributed to a decrease in the psychophysical effect of misleading utterances in a second language. Recent research has shown that decision-making procedures are susceptible to emotional responses emanating from the speech used to characterize them (native vs. foreign) (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, 2009). Moreover, non-native speakers tend to act more rationally in social and communication situations when they must use a foreign language because of the lesser emotional significance of the foreign language compared to their native dialect.

The authors examined the “double stressor” record from a broader viewpoint to answer the following research questions;

• Does the linguistic implications (native vs. foreign) and the influence on the truthfulness of the proclamations (true vs. untrue) autonomous (independent but additive)?
• Is there a significant cost linked to the production of misleading assertions in a second language?

The following were the author’s hypotheses:

1. When speaking a second language, pupils dilate more, and utterance lengths are more extended than when using a native tongue.
2. False statements generate substantial pupil dilation and prolonged voice initiation latencies relative to truthful remarks.
3. For all of these factors, the amount of the impact of making misleading claims is equivalent in the two languages.

Their findings showed that the administration costs involved with producing misleading (false) statements are independent of the expenses related to communicating in a foreign language. From another perspective, the difficulty associated with the creation of false claims is the same irrespective of the language employed and the ability level of the individuals, at least for non-balanced successive bilinguals.

The primary independent variables included the statements’ truthfulness (true vs. untrue) and the language (native vs. foreign) they generated. The authors manipulated the variables to serve as an excellent stand-in for gauging the probable relationship between the two variables. It is possible to reasonably assume that the combined impacts of comprehending a foreign language and responding to misleading remarks, both of which cause cognitive stress, would amplify the latter’s impact on the former(Duñabeitia & Costa, 2015). Nevertheless, one may propose an alternate result based on the second language’s supposedly weaker emotional significance. In other words, lying in one language has the same impact as lying in the other. In the most extreme scenario, lying in the second language has less impact than lying in the native language.

Duñabeitia & Costa used voice start timings, pupil size change, and utterance lengths as the dependent variables. They performed individual calculations to determine the incorrect replies’ voice onset latencies and durations (both in milliseconds). The authors calculated the increase or decrease in pupil size (as a percentage) during the entire 5-second duration of correct trials relative to a standard indicator composed mainly of the size of each subject’s pupil all through the 2-second interval between the onset of the intended picture and the demonstration of the color prompts. Significantly, there was no difference in pupil size amongst groups throughout the study periods. For each of the three dependent metrics, trials in which the scores surpassed more than 2.5 statistical parameters from the average for each person involved in each situation were deemed outliers and afterward excluded from the analysis. They examined the remaining data using a set of 2*2 Language (Native|Foreign)* Statement (True|False) in ANOVAs series.

Pupillometric reflexes demonstrated more significant dilatation during false statement trials and while addressing a second language. Nevertheless, the author’s findings demonstrate that the cognitive costs associated with deceit and foreign language creation occur at distinct, unrelated levels in the system. The verbal parameters gathered in this research (voice onset delay and utterance length) are associated with two distinct processing phases (preverbal and verbal). Assuming that only voice onsets were responsive to the proposition modification, the authors hypothesized that the cognitive cost related to the creation of false statements emerges primarily during the preverbal stage when presenters must choose the conceptual material that will be communicated(Keysar et al., 2012). This preverbal stage may be more tiring when making deceptive remarks than while stating the truth since, among other considerations, the speaker must watch the preverbal message more closely. In order to generate a false remark, it is necessary to suppress a conspicuous reaction (the true statement) to lie about an event. After this stage, lexicalization and verbalization of the author’s intent may occur somewhat independently of the kind of statement while being very responsive to linguistics. While most of the cost connected with deceit appeared during conceptualization, most of the cost related to generating speech in a foreign language happened during lexical access and phonetic retrieval, indicating an additive but different understanding of the effects. This temporal separation permits a clear contrast between the impacts of deceit throughout conceptualizing (during the generation of temporary models in memory function) and the impacts of target language ability during composition and communication.

In conclusion, the authors demonstrated that, notwithstanding the cognitive costs related to communicating in a non-native language, the cognitive load imposed by lying is unrelated to linguistics. They proposed that this was partly due to the emotional isolation that non-native individuals have from the second language. They claimed that it was a speculative theory requiring additional investigation.

This study had some weaknesses; unlike what would be the results from the “double stressor,” the upfront costs of making up lies in a foreign language did not compound into higher costs of lying in the target language, later on, showing the existence of a compensating mechanism that lightens the load. An increasing body of research suggests that understanding a message in a second language might reduce its emotional impact and lead to psychological distancing(Keysar et al., 2012).

The authors had an alternative hypothesis to explain the results. According to them, although the specific cause of this decrease in emotional response is not entirely known, its consequences are relatively widespread, extending to language processing and decision-making processes. Therefore, the authors may hypothesize that individuals can partly fabricate misleading claims in a foreign language when prompted to do so(Keysar et al., 2012). Although the specific basis of this decrease in emotional response is not yet known, its impacts are widespread, stretching not just to language comprehension but also to decision-making mechanisms. Therefore, when prompted, participants can partly fabricate misleading claims in a foreign language.

References

Caldwell-Harris, C. L., & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, A. (2009). Emotion and lying in a non-native language. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71(3), 193-204.

Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S. E., Fife-Schaw, C. E., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Research methods in psychology. Sage Publications, Inc.

Duñabeitia, J. A., & Costa, A. (2015). Lying in a native and foreign language. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(4), 1124-1129.

Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological science, 23(6), 661-668.