scholarly journals Bilinguals are less susceptible to the bias blind spot in their second language

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paweł Niszczota ◽  
Magdalena Pawlak ◽  
Michal Bialek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Main Hypothesis ◽  
Attenuation Effect ◽  
Bias Blind Spot ◽  
Processing Information ◽  
Blind Spots

Extant research suggests that processing information in a second language (L2) affects decision making, possibly by affecting metacognition. We hypothesized that processing in L2 will reduce the bias blind spot effect, whereby people (on average) erroneously think that they are less susceptible to biases than others. In Experiment 1, participants assessed their susceptibility and the susceptibility of others to 13 psychological and 7 economic biases, in either L1 (Polish) or L2 (English). In Experiment 2, participants assessed the 7 most severe bias blind spots from Experiment 1. We recruited 500 participants for each experiment via Prolific (832 overall, after exclusions). The main hypothesis and moderators were tested via mixed-model regressions. In Experiment 1, participants showed an overall bias blind spot, which decreased in the L2 condition, but only for psychological biases. In Experiment 2, we replicated the L2-bias blind spot attenuation effect. An exploratory analysis suggests that the effect of L2 is the result of both lower ratings of other-susceptibility and higher ratings of self-susceptibility. Our study provides unique insights on how L2 affects metacognition. We are the first to study how use of L2 can attenuate the bias blind spot. Our findings provide rare support for the psychological distancing (‘birds-eye view’) explanation for the foreign language effect. Bilinguals using L2 showed some resilience to the bias blind spot, suggesting metacognition is language-dependent. Using L2 can be considered as a debiasing technique.

Overcoming Confirmation and Blind Spot Biases When Communicating Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Kenski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Process Information ◽  
Bias Blind Spot

This chapter focuses on two biases that lead people away from evaluating evidence and scientific studies impartially—confirmation bias and bias blind spot. The chapter first discusses different ways in which people process information and reviews the costs and benefits of utilizing cognitive shortcuts in decision making. Next, two common cognitive biases, confirmation bias and bias blind spot, are explained. Then the literature on “debiasing” is explored. Finally, the implications of confirmation bias and bias blind spot in the context of communicating about science are examined, and an agenda for future research on understanding and mitigating these biases is offered.

scholarly journals Autonomic arousal in a foreign language in the context of decision making

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Mai Al-Khatib ◽  
Charles R. Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Framing Effect ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
Affective Processing ◽  
Autonomic Arousal ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Emotional Distancing

We test emotional distancing in a second language (L2) by replicating an experiment by Keysar, Hayakawa, and An (2012) on making decisions under the framing effect (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). With their participants’ average Age of Acquisition (AoA) being around and beyond puberty, autonomic arousal was evident in native language (L1) but absent in L2. Our study showed no difference between L1 and L2 when AoA was around 4. However, when average AoA was around 7.7, autonomic arousal was evident in L1 but absent in L2, predicting an AoA threshold affecting L2 affective processing significantly earlier than puberty.

scholarly journals Foreign Language Effect on Decision-Making when Compared to Native and Second Language

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pratibha Ahirwal ◽  
Mahak Kothari ◽  
Veeky Baths
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Native Language ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
French And English ◽  
The Given ◽  
Risk Loss ◽  
Made In

Decision-making is a complex process of selecting an option from the given choices by analyzing the background information like risk, loss, and gain within the alternative options presented. It has been observed in earlier studies that people are prompt to make less rational decisions when choices are given in a language less known to them. Therefore, to understand the effect of languages on decision-making, we have questioned native Hindi speakers in French and English. French being the foreign language, and English as their second language. Thus, this effect of a non-native language brings to light the important role that the native language plays routinely in judgment and decision-making. In this paper, we developed a Neuropsychological assessment to decipher the effects on decision-making between choices when given in foreign language and second language in comparison with the native language of an individual, which is termed as foreign language effect(Fle). We have explored various possible situations to understand the foreign language effect(Fle) in decision-making and does this change translates when the decision is to be made in the second language. Our study concludes that the Foreign language is least affected by the intuitive biases, followed by the second language, and the native language is most affected by it.

Are Students Blind to Their Ethical Blind Spots? An Exploration of Why Ethics Education Should Focus on Self-Perception Biases

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen A. Tomlin ◽  
Matthew L. Metzger ◽  
Jill Bradley-Geist ◽  
Tracy Gonzalez-Padron
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Ethics Education ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Training Module ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Behavioral Ethics ◽  
Bias Blind Spot ◽  
Psychology Literature ◽  
Blind Spots

Ethics blind spots, which have become a keystone of the emerging behavioral ethics literature, are essentially biases, heuristics, and psychological traps. Though students typically recognize that ethical challenges exist in the world at large, they often fail to see when they are personally prone to ethics blind spots. This creates an obstacle for ethics education—inducing students to act in an ethical manner when faced with real challenges. Grounded in the social psychology literature, we suggest that a meta-bias, the bias blind spot, should be addressed to facilitate student recognition of real-world ethical dilemmas and their own susceptibility to biases. We present a roadmap for an ethics education training module, developed to incorporate both ethics blind spots and self-perception biases. After completing the module, students identified potential ethical challenges in their real-world team projects and reflected on their susceptibility to ethical transgressions. Qualitative student feedback supports the value of this training module beyond traditional ethics education approaches. Lessons for management and ethics educators include (a) the value of timely, in-context ethics interventions and (b) the need for student self-reflection (more so than emphasis on broad ethical principles). Future directions are discussed.

scholarly journals Debiasing Decisions

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carey K. Morewedge ◽  
Haewon Yoon ◽  
Irene Scopelliti ◽  
Carl W. Symborski ◽  
James H. Korris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Computer Game ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Bias Reduction ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Instructional Video ◽  
Training Intervention ◽  
Intelligence Analysis ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Bias Blind Spot

From failures of intelligence analysis to misguided beliefs about vaccinations, biased judgment and decision making contributes to problems in policy, business, medicine, law, education, and private life. Early attempts to reduce decision biases with training met with little success, leading scientists and policy makers to focus on debiasing by using incentives and changes in the presentation and elicitation of decisions. We report the results of two longitudinal experiments that found medium to large effects of one-shot debiasing training interventions. Participants received a single training intervention, played a computer game or watched an instructional video, which addressed biases critical to intelligence analysis (in Experiment 1: bias blind spot, confirmation bias, and fundamental attribution error; in Experiment 2: anchoring, representativeness, and social projection). Both kinds of interventions produced medium to large debiasing effects immediately (games ≥ −31.94% and videos ≥ −18.60%) that persisted at least 2 months later (games ≥ −23.57% and videos ≥ −19.20%). Games that provided personalized feedback and practice produced larger effects than did videos. Debiasing effects were domain general: bias reduction occurred across problems in different contexts, and problem formats that were taught and not taught in the interventions. The results suggest that a single training intervention can improve decision making. We suggest its use alongside improved incentives, information presentation, and nudges to reduce costly errors associated with biased judgments and decisions.

scholarly journals Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt V. Ehinger ◽  
Katja Häusser ◽  
José Ossandón ◽  
Peter König
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
External Input ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Sensory Signals ◽  
Direct Input ◽  
Optimal Decision Making ◽  
Physically Identical ◽  
Blind Spots

ABSTRACTHumans often evaluate sensory signals according to their reliability for optimal decision-making. However, how do we evaluate percepts generated in the absence of direct input that are, therefore, completely unreliable? Here, we utilize the phenomenon of filling-in occurring at the physiological blind-spots to compare partially inferred and veridical percepts. Subjects chose between stimuli that elicit filling-in, and perceptually equivalent ones presented outside the blind-spots, looking for a Gabor stimulus without a small orthogonal inset. In ambiguous conditions, when the stimuli were physically identical and the inset was absent in both, subjects behaved opposite to optimal, preferring the blind-spot stimulus as the better example of a collinear stimulus, even though no relevant veridical information was available. Thus, a percept that is partially inferred is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input. In other words: Humans treat filled-in inferred percepts as more real than veridical ones.

scholarly journals Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

eLife ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt V Ehinger ◽  
Katja Häusser ◽  
José P Ossandón ◽  
Peter König
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
External Input ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Sensory Signals ◽  
Direct Input ◽  
Optimal Decision Making ◽  
Physically Identical ◽  
Blind Spots

Humans often evaluate sensory signals according to their reliability for optimal decision-making. However, how do we evaluate percepts generated in the absence of direct input that are, therefore, completely unreliable? Here, we utilize the phenomenon of filling-in occurring at the physiological blind-spots to compare partially inferred and veridical percepts. Subjects chose between stimuli that elicit filling-in, and perceptually equivalent ones presented outside the blind-spots, looking for a Gabor stimulus without a small orthogonal inset. In ambiguous conditions, when the stimuli were physically identical and the inset was absent in both, subjects behaved opposite to optimal, preferring the blind-spot stimulus as the better example of a collinear stimulus, even though no relevant veridical information was available. Thus, a percept that is partially inferred is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input. In other words: Humans treat filled-in inferred percepts as more real than veridical ones.

The bias blind spot: Mechanisms, and implications for social conflict

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Pronin ◽  
Thomas Gilovich ◽  
Lee Ross
Keyword(s):  
Social Conflict ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Bias Blind Spot

The Direct Method

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Purwarno
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Direct Method ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Translation Method ◽  
Grammar Translation Method

The Direct Method was the outcome of a reaction against the Grammar Translation Method. It was based on the assumption that the learner of a foreign language should think directly in the target language. According to this method, English is taught through English. The learner learns the target language through discussion, conversation and reading in the second language. It does not take recourse to translation and foreign grammar.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document