Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Two seemingly counterintuitive phenomena – asymmetrical language switch costs and the reversed language dominance effect – prove to be particularly controversial in the literature on language control. Asymmetrical language switch costs refer to the larger costs for switching into the dominant language compared to switching into the less dominant language, both relative to staying in either one language. The reversed language dominance effect refers to longer reaction times when in the more dominant of the two languages in situations that require frequent language switching (i.e., mixed-language blocks). The asymmetrical language switch costs are commonly taken as an index for processes of transient, reactive inhibitory language control, whereas the reversed language dominance effect is taken as an index for sustained, proactive inhibitory language control. In the present meta-analysis, we set out to establish the empirical evidence for these two phenomena using a Bayesian linear mixed effects modelling approach. Despite the observation of both phenomena in some studies, our results suggest that overall, there is little evidence for the generality and robustness of these two effects, and this holds true even when conditions – such as language proficiency and preparation time manipulations – were included as moderators of these phenomena. We conclude that asymmetrical switch costs and the reversed language dominance effect are important for theory development, but their utility for theory testing is limited due to their lack of robustness and the absence of confirmed moderatory variables.

Assessing Proactive Language Control: Does Predictability of Language Sequences Benefit Language Switching?

“…In addition, we observed switch costs as expected: In a switch trial, it is harder to activate the correct language, as it had been inhibited on the previous trial. Interestingly, we did not find any evidence for asymmetrical switch costs (i.e., more pronounced switch costs for L1 than L2) across experiments; while asymmetrical switch costs have been reported under some circumstances, recent evidence indicates that they may not be as robust as previously thought ( Gade et al, 2021 )—our data are consistent with that conclusion. Overall, these results suggest that implementing a predictable sequence did not fundamentally change how pictures were named.…”

“…in multilinguals). These asymmetric switch costs are sometimes observed (e.g., Experiment 1 by Costa & Santesteban, 2004;Meuter & Allport, 1999; though not always, see Experiments 2-4 by Costa & Santesteban, 2004;Declerck et al, 2012;Gade et al, 2021;Slevc et al, 2016) and are consistent with the ICM predictions.…”

“…In addition to the mixing costs, it is also often observed that L1 is more affected by mixing than L2 to the extent that naming in L1 becomes even slower than naming in L2 in mixed language blocks, even though the opposite was true in pure language blocks ( Christoffels et al, 2007 ; Jylkkä et al, 2018 ). This phenomenon is referred to as L1 slowing or reversed language dominance effect (see Gade et al, 2021 ). Interestingly, performance costs related to language switching are reduced or even non-existent when participants are allowed to switch voluntarily, suggesting that language switching outside the laboratory (where voluntary switching may be more common) may be less effortful than cued language switching suggests ( Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2017 , 2018 ).…”

Correction: Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

“… This article details a correction to: Gade, M., Declerck, M., Philipp, A. M., Rey-Mermet, A., & Koch, I. ( 2021 ). Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis.…”

Are some effector systems harder to switch to? In search of cost asymmetries when switching between manual, vocal, and oculomotor tasks

“…Specifically, many studies reported that switching to a dominant (typically in the sense of better trained) task results in larger switch costs than switching to the less dominant task (e.g., Allport et al, 1994 ; Allport & Wylie, 1999 ; de Jong, 1995 ; Monsell et al, 2000 ; Yeung & Monsell, 2003 ). For example, Meuter and Allport ( 1999 ) observed asymmetric switch costs in the context of language switching: When bilingual participants switched between digit naming in their (better trained) first language versus their second language, they responded more slowly in their second (vs. first) language in repetition trials, but faster in their second (vs. first) language in switch trials (see, e.g., Declerck & Philipp, 2015 , for a review; but see Gade et al, 2021 , for limits regarding a generalization of these effects).…”