ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024
Self-evaluations and the language of the beholder: objective performance and language solidarity predict L2 and L1 self-evaluations in bilingual adults.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-rated language proficiency as a context-dependent judgment.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Free Association Database for a 62-Word Dataset Including Emotion and Colour Terms in English, Estonian, French, German, Italian, Lithuanian, and Spanish: Data from 14 Countries.Journal of open psychology data · 2025Article
- Investigating the Effects of Valence, Arousal, Concreteness, and Humor on Words Unique to Singapore English.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People are often asked to self-evaluate their abilities, and these evaluations may not always reflect objective reality. Here, we investigated this issue for bilingual adults' self-evaluations of language proficiency and usage. We specifically examined how people's self-reported language solidarity impacted their first- (L1) and second-language (L2) self-evaluations, while statistically controlling for their objective language performance (i.e. LexTALE). We also investigated whether this impact varied for value-laden evaluations (e.g. how "good" am I at my L2) vs. usage-based evaluations (e.g. how often do I use my L2) for two sociolinguistically distinct groups (i.e. English-L1 speakers vs. French-L1 speakers in Montreal). Starting with value-laden self-evaluations, we found that French-L1 speakers with more favourable L2-English solidarity tended to underestimate their objective L2 ability, whereas French-L1 speakers with less favourable L2-English solidarity more accurately estimated their objective L2 ability. In contrast, English-L1 speakers with more favourable L2-French solidarity more accurately estimated their objective L2 ability than those with less favourable L2-French solidarity who underestimated their L2-French abilities. Turning to usage-based self-evaluations, we found that participants' self-evaluations were generally more accurate reflections of their performance, in a manner that was less affected by individual differences in self-reported language solidarity. This implies that language solidarity (or perhaps language attitudes more generally) can implicitly or explicitly impact bilingual adults' language self-evaluations when these evaluations are value-laden. These data suggest that people's language attitudes can bias how they perceive their abilities, although self-evaluations based on language use may be less susceptible to bias than those that are value-laden. These data have implications for the study of language and cognition that depend on self-assessments of individual differences and are relevant to work on how people self-assess their abilities generally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.