December 30, 2014

Publication Bias May Boost Findings for Bilingual Brain Benefits

Of studies presented at conferences, those that found a cognitive benefit to bilingualism were almost twice as likely to get published in journals as were studies finding no benefit. Karen Hopkin reports

By Karen Hopkin

SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Mind

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Over the past 10 years, many scientific papers have shown that speaking more than one language can convey some cognitive rewards. For example, bilingualism seems to boost the brain’s ability to focus, plan, and perform certain mentally taxing tasks. But a few papers show no such advantages.

Now a study finds that research that challenges a bilingual benefit is less likely to be published than studies that find one. This party pooping, or fiesta-foiling, finding is in the journal Psychological Science. [Angela de Bruin, Barbara Treccani and Sergio Della Sala, Cognitive Advantage in Bilingualism: An Example of Publication Bias?]

Researchers compared studies presented at conferences to those actually accepted for publication. Of the 104 meeting abstracts they examined, about half supported a bilingual advantage and half challenged or failed to find one.

But when it came to publication, 63 percent of the bilingual boosting studies made it into a scientific journal, as opposed to 36 percent of the studies with null findings.

The data do not address whether the bias toward affirmative results comes from the journal editors and reviewers or from the scientists themselves. And they don’t suggest that bilingualism offers no advantages. Regardless of brain function, there exist undeniable social benefits to having two tongues versus just one.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American