Bilingual social cognition: Investigating the relationship between bilingual language experience and mentalizing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentalizing is a dynamic form of social cognition that is strengthened by language experience and proficiency. Similarly, bilingual children and adults consistently outperform monolinguals on traditional tasks. Here, we probe the relationship between bilingual language experience and mentalizing by investigating first (L1) versus second language (L2) mentalizing, and whether individual differences in language diversity continuously pattern with mentalizing judgments. We tested sixty-one bilingual adults on an on-line reading and inference task that compared mental state and logical inferences. We find that all readers judge mental state inferences as less coherent than logical inferences, but L2 readers make this judgment for mental state inferences faster than L1 readers. Moreover, L2 readers overmentalize logical inferences compared to L1 readers. In addition, greater language diversity patterns with higher mentalizing for mental state inferences across all readers. Together, we find evidence in favor of a positive relationship between bilingual language experience and mentalizing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it