The role of componential analysis, categorical hypothesising, replicability and confirmation bias in testing for bilingual advantages in executive functioning

By K. Paap. 2014

96 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. (2015, background): “Although we agree that this could be so in theorywe have argued that this has yet to happen (Paap, 2014; Paap, Sawi, Dalibar, Darrow,& Johnson, 2014, 2015).”
Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences? (2014, background): “The bilingual advantages are artefacts perspective does not rely solely on appeals to Type 1 errors, confirmation biases and inadequately matched groups (see the discussion in Paap, 2014; Paap & Greenberg, 2013; Paap & Liu, 2014).”
No compelling evidence for a bilingual advantage in switching or that frequent language switching reduces switch cost (2017, methodology): “the stage for a strong and compelling test for bilingual advantages in EF as advocated by Paap and Greenberg (2013) in that multiple measures of the same component of EF (switching in this case) can be derived for both language groups.”
Bilingualism and cognition (2014, background): “…to study in tasks (e.g., Simon vs Stroop), task versions (e.g., verbal vs numerical Stroop), and measures within those tasks (e.g., accuracy rates vs reaction times vs reaction times only for certain types of trials), that it is very difficult to determine the locus of inconsistencies (Paap, 2014).”