Re-examining the Bilingual Advantage in Prospective Memory: A Partial Replication with Turkish Bilingual and Monolingual Young Adults

Öz

Recently, the bilingual advantage hypothesis has come under debate, and the replicability of studies documenting cognitive differences between bilingual and monolingual individuals has been questioned. These methodological concerns highlight the necessity for replication studies in bilingualism research. Furthermore, studies examining the relationship between bilingualism and event-based prospective memory (EB-PM) remain scarce. Building on this gap, the present study offers a partial replication of Yörük et al.’s (2023) research investigating the effect of bilingualism on EB-PM in a North Macedonian sample. Unlike the original study, in which bilingual participants were Turkish and English speakers residing in North Macedonia, both groups were selected from Türkiye. Additionally, task parameters were updated to resolve the high-saliency issue in the non-focal condition. A total of 98 young adults (49 per-group), aged 18-30 and residing in Ankara, were evaluated using focal and non-focal EB-PM tasks alongside an ongoing task. The 2 (Group: bilingual, monolingual) x 2 (Task type: focal, non-focal) mixed-design ANOVA results, consistent with the original study, provided no support for a bilingual advantage in PM accuracy. A significant main effect of task type emerged, with PM-accuracy in the focal task exceeding that of the non-focal task. Bilingual participants also responded significantly faster than monolinguals on the ongoing task, replicating the original findings. The findings suggest that any potential bilingual advantage in PM performance is context-dependent and dynamic. Furthermore, it was discussed that these findings indicate how language interaction context shapes the magnitude of observed effects within the framework of the Adaptive-Control-Hypothesis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilingualism
• prospective memory
• focality
• language interaction context

Destekleyen Kurum

This study was financially supported by the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Hacettepe University within the scope of doctoral thesis support (Grant No: SDK-2023-20827).

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from Hacettepe University Ethics Committee on 20/01/2023 and 300-00002641797 document number.

İleriye Dönük Bellekte İki Dilli Olmanın Avantajının Yeniden İncelenmesi: Türk İki Dilli ve Tek Dilli Genç Yetişkinlerle Yapılan Bir Kısmi Replikasyon Çalışması

Öz

Son zamanlarda iki dillilik avantajı hipotezi tartışmaya açılmış ve iki dilli ile tek dilli bireyler arasındaki bilişsel farklılıkları ortaya koyan çalışmaların tekrarlanabilirliği sorgulanmaya başlanmıştır. Bu yöntemsel kaygılar, iki dillilik araştırmalarında replikasyon çalışmalarının gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, iki dillilik ile olay temelli ileriye dönük bellek (Event-Based Prospective Memory, OT-İDB) arasındaki ilişkiyi inceleyen çalışmalar oldukça sınırlı sayıdadır. Bu boşluktan hareketle, mevcut çalışma, Yörük ve arkadaşlarının (2023) Kuzey Makedonya örnekleminde iki dilliliğin OT-İDB üzerindeki etkisini araştıran çalışmasının kısmi bir tekrarını sunmaktadır. İki dilli katılımcıların Kuzey Makedonya’da yaşayan Türkçe ve İngilizce konuşanlardan oluştuğu özgün çalışmadan farklı olarak, bu çalışmada her iki grup da Türkiye’den seçilmiştir. Ayrıca, odaksal olmayan koşuldaki yüksek belirginlik (saliency) sorununu çözmek amacıyla görev parametreleri güncellenmiştir. Ankara’da yaşayan, 18-30 yaş aralığındaki toplam 98 genç yetişkin (her grupta 49 kişi), odaksal ve odaksal olmayan OT-İDB görevleri ile birlikte süregiden bir görev kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. 2 (Grup: iki dilli, tek dilli) x 2 (Görev türü: odaksal, odaksal olmayan) karma desenli ANOVA sonuçları, özgün çalışmayla tutarlı şekilde, İDB doğruluğunda iki dillilik avantajına dair bir destek sağlamamıştır. Görev türünün temel etkisi anlamlı bulunmuş olup, odaksal görevdeki İDB doğruluğu odaksal olmayan görevdekinden daha yüksektir. İki dilli katılımcılar ayrıca süregiden görevde tek dillilerden anlamlı şekilde daha hızlı tepki vermiş ve böylece özgün bulgular tekrarlanmıştır. Bulgular, İDB performansındaki olası bir iki dillilik avantajının bağlama bağlı ve dinamik olabileceğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, bu bulguların, dil etkileşim bağlamının gözlenen etkilerin büyüklüğünü Uyarlanabilir-Kontrol-Hipotezi (Adaptive-Control-Hypothesis) çerçevesinde nasıl şekillendirdiğini ortaya koyduğu tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İkidillilik
• ileriye dönük bellek
• odaksallık
• dil etkileşim bağlamı

Kaynakça

1. Altgassen, M., Williams, T. I., Bölte, S., & Kliegel, M. (2009). Time-based prospective memory in children with autism spectrum disorder. Brain Impairment, 10(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1375/brim.10.1.52
2. Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
3. Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 666-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859
4. Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233-262. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099
5. Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025406
6. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 290-303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.290
7. Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2014). Cognitive control in bilinguals: Advantages in Stimulus-Stimulus inhibition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 610-629. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000564
8. Calabria, M., Hernández, M., Branzi, F. M., & Costa, A. (2012). Qualitative differences between bilingual language control and executive control: Evidence from task-switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00399

9. Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Sorge, G. B., & Bialystok, E. (2017). The relationship between bilingualism and selective attention in young adults: Evidence from an ambiguous figures task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1221435
10. De Bruin, A. (2019). Not all bilinguals are the same: A call for more detailed assessments and descriptions of bilingual experiences. Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030033
11. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 717-726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.717
12. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., & Breneiser, J. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327
13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
14. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Sage Publications.
15. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133
16. Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
17. Grundy, J. G., Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Friesen, D. C., Mak, L., & Bialystok, E. (2017). Sequential congruency effects reveal differences in disengagement of attention for monolingual and bilingual young adults. Cognition, 163, 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.010
18. Heathcote, A., Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2015). Slow down and remember to remember! A delay theory of prospective memory costs. Psychological Review, 122(2), 376-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038952
19. Hefer, C., Cohen, A-L., Jaudas, A., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). The flexible engagement of monitoring processes in non-focal and focal prospective memory tasks with salient cues. Acta Psychologica, 179, 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.06.008
20. Hicks, J. L., Franks, B. A., & Spitler, S. N. (2017). Prior task experience and comparable stimulus exposure nullify focal and non-focal prospective memory retrieval differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(10), 1997-2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1217891
21. 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(4), 625-658. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0116-7
22. Kliegel, M., Mackinlay, R., & Jäger, T. (2008). Complex prospective memory: Development across the lifespan and the role of task interruption. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 612-617. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.612
23. Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 377-394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124937
24. Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Wait a second: Brief delays in responding reduce focality effects in event-based prospective memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(7), 1432-1447. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.750677
25. López-Rojas, C., Rossi, E., Marful, A., & Bajo, M. T. (2022). Prospective memory in bilinguals and monolinguals: ERP and behavioural correlates of prospective processing in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 225, 105059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.105059
26. Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 605-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.795574
27. Mahy, C. E. V., Moses, L. J., & Kliegel, M. (2014). The development of prospective memory in children: An executive framework. Developmental Review, 34(4), 305-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.08.001
28. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940-967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
29. Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001068
30. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.775
31. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. SAGE Publications.
32. Morton, J. B., & Harper, S. N. (2007). What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. Developmental Science, 10(6), 719-726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00623.x
33. Naeem, K., Filippi, R., Periche-Tomas, E., Papageorgiou, A., & Bright, P. (2018). The importance of socioeconomic status as a modulator of the bilingual advantage in cognitive ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01818
34. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
35. Paap, K. (2022). The Bilingual Advantage in Executive Functioning Hypothesis: How the debate provides insight into psychology's replication crisis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003308027
36. Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. (2014). Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 615-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.944914
37. Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014
38. Pakyürek, G., & Cangöz-Tavat, B. (2023). Age-related differences in prospective memory: Turkish Virtual Week (VW-TR). Turkish Journal of Geriatrics, 26(3), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.29400/tjgeri.2023.351
39. Poarch, G. J. (2018). Multilingual language control and executive function: A replication study. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 46. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00046
40. Poarch, G. J., & Krott, A. (2019). A bilingual advantage? An appeal for a change in perspective and recommendations for future research. Behavioral Sciences, 9(9), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9090095
41. Simons, D. J., Holcombe, A. O., & Spellman, B. A. (2014). An introduction to registered replication reports at perspectives on psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 552-555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614543974
42. Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347
43. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (2014). Prospective memory in young and older adults: The effects of task importance and ongoing task load. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 21(4), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2013.827150
44. Surrain, S., & Luk, G. (2019). Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and descriptions used in the literature between 2005-2015. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(2), 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000682
45. Valian, V. (2015). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000522
46. Wang, L., Altgassen, M., Liu, W., Xiong, W., Akgün, C., & Kliegel, M. (2011). Prospective memory across adolescence: The effects of age and cue focality. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021306
47. Yahya, M., Yörük-Sevinçli, A., Salman, F., & Cangöz-Tavat, B. (2025). The bilingual prospective memory advantage and executive control dynamics. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 37(3), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2025.2467307
48. Yahya, M., Kirjakovski, A., & Özkan Ceylan, A. (2026). Script influence on language switch costs in a Stroop task: Pilot results. International Journal of Bilingualism, 30(2), 638-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069251335863
49. Yörük, A., Yahya, M., & Cangoz-Tavat, B. (2023). Do bilinguals have an advantage in prospective memory? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2022.2159964
50. Yurtsever, A., Anderson, J. A. E., & Grundy, J. G. (2023). Bilingual children outperform monolingual children on executive function tasks far more often than chance: An updated quantitative analysis. Developmental Review, 69, 101084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2023.101084