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
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.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
