Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-9bxm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-15T20:42:05.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The bilingual advantage in the Stroop task: simultaneous vs. early bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2014

LAURA SABOURIN  and
SANTA VĪNERTE
LAURA SABOURIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa
SANTA VĪNERTE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa
*
Address for correspondence: Laura Sabourin, Linguistics Department, University of Ottawa, 70 Laurier Ave. E. Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, CanadaLaura.Sabourin@uottawa.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Stroop task has become a popular paradigm in investigations of bilingual cognitive control. While several studies show a cognitive control advantage for bilinguals, recent studies have countered these findings. The present study investigates two factors that may account for conflicting results: participant grouping and task difficulty. While we find no differences between simultaneous and early bilinguals (age groups traditionally both classified as “early” bilinguals) when the task uses only one language, we find a significant difference between the two when languages are mixed. We suggest treating the two groups as distinct, and note the importance of the bilingual context.

Keywords

cognitive controlbilingualismStroop tasksimultaneous bilingualsearly bilinguals

Information

Type
Research Note
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: L3 Acquisition: A Focus on Cognitive Approaches , April 2015 , pp. 350 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Sameer Ratti, Yu Ying Li and Natalie Ho for their help with testing participants. We further thank all members of the Brain and Language Lab for discussions during the setting up and implementing of this research. We also thank Greg Poarch and one anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier version of this paper. This research was supported by a SSHRC grant to the first author.

References

Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (4), 859–873.Google ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (4), 240–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. D. (1980). Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (3), 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coderre, E. L., Van Heuven, W.J.B., & Conklin, K. (2013). The timing and magnitude of Stroop interfernce and facilitation in monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 420–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J.L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97 (3), 332–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids in conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D.W. (2011). Language control in different contexts: the behavioral ecology of bilinguals speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2:103, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D.W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: the adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heidlmayr, K., Moutier, S., Hemforth, B., Courin, C., Tanzmeister, R., & Isel, F. (2014). Successive bilingualism and executive functions: The effect of second language use on inhibitory control in a behavioural Stroop Colour Word task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (3), 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilchey, M.D., & Klein, R.M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 625–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kousaie, S., & Phillips, N.A. (2012). Aging and bilingualism: Absence of a “bilingual advantage” in Stroop interference in a nonimmigrant sample. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65 (2), 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9 (2), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research in the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109 (2), 163–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, C.M., & MacDonald, P.A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (10), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, V. & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzecová, A., Asanowicz, D., Krivá, L., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). The effects of bilingualism on efficiency and lateralization of attentional networks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (3), 608–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paap, K.R., & Greenberg, Z.I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66 (2), 232–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabourin, L. and members of the ERPLing Laboratory. (2009). Language Background Questionnaire. Unpublished Document, ERPLing Laboratory.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Brien, C., & Burkholder, M. (2014). The effect of age of L2 acquisition on the organization of the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from masked priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (3), 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, L., Marzecová, A., Taft, M., Asanowicz, D., & Wodniecka, Z. (2011). The efficiency of attentional networks in early and late bilinguals: The role of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Leiser, D. (1990). Controlling Stroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 760–771.Google Scholar
Wu, Y.J., & Thierry, G. (2013). Fast modulation of executive function by language context in bilinguals. Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (33), 13533–13537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zied, K.M., Philippe, A., Pinon, K., Havet-Thomassin, V., Ghislaine, A., Roy, A., & Le Gall, D. (2004). Bilingualism and adult differences in inhibitory mechanisms: Evidence from a bilingual Stroop task. Brain and Cognition, 54, 254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar