Evaluating the Bilingual Cognitive Advantage in Toddlers: A Living Lab Museum-Based Study

• In Event: Poster Session 06
  In Poster Session: PS 06 Topic - Attention, Learning, Memory

Abstract

A current research focus in childhood bilingualism is the “bilingual advantage” in executive function (EF) tasks (i.e., shifting, working memory, response inhibition), attributed to bilinguals’ constant need to control their two languages. However, the explanations for, the magnitude of, and even the existence of a bilingual EF advantage are highly debated (De Bruin, Treccani & Della Sala, 2015). Some attribute bilinguals’ differential performance to methodological issues (small samples, demographics, etc.) and/or to a confirmation bias (Paap & Greenberg, 2013). To address some of these limitations, we recruited and ran participants in a Living Lab at a local museum. This design choice increases the diversity of our sample, as all 4- to 6-year-olds visiting the museum are welcome to participate. We used a new short, engaging task conducted in English or French (child’s choice) to look at children’s EF: a game consisting of 20 trials where children choose one of five objects that does NOT match what is on a displayed card, based on two dimensions (object/color). Thus, the task involves attention shifting and response inhibition, key processes underlying the possible bilingual EF advantage. Parents filled out a questionnaire including socioeconomic variables and estimates of their child’s language exposure. Monolinguals (N = 34) had greater than 90% exposure to French or English (regional official languages). Multilingual children (N = 31) had at least 20% exposure to another language. There was no relationship between SES variables and task performance. Age positively correlated with number of correct object selections (r = .45, p < .01). Treating multilingualism as a continuous variable and partialling out age, we found a moderate positive relationship (r = .25, p = .07) between task performance and children’s language exposure (0 = equal exposure to 1 = use of only one language), reflecting better performance by the more “monolingual” children. Splitting the children into language groups, our age effect was supported via a 3 (age: 4, 5, 6) X 2 (language: mono, multi) ANOVA which produced a significant age effect (p<.01). However, the was no language group effect (p=.19) and no significant interaction between age and language group (p=.96). For age, 4-year-olds (M = 11.00) significantly differed from 6-year-olds (M = 17.38; p <.01). Clearly, no bilingual advantage is present, but why is there a suggestion of an advantage the more “monolingual” a child is? Our monolingual and multilingual groups were not randomly distributed across ages. While our younger ages had more monolinguals than multilinguals, our 6-year-old group consisted of 11 multilinguals and 5 monolinguals (who nearly had a significant difference in scores, p=.058). This sample imbalance is probably a result a school-related language change: locally, many children are in school-based immersion programs, whereas other heritage-language children have first exposure to an official language at school. Thus, our multilinguals may over-represent recent sequential bilinguals with less experience managing two languages and/or difficulty understanding the instructions for the task. We will expand our sample of 4- to 6-year-olds and use a detailed background measure to explore these potential group differences.

Authors

• Christopher Fennell, Université d'Ottawa
  Presenting Author

• Marie Hélène Drolet, University of Ottawa
  Non-Presenting Author