The many foibles of Likert scales challenge claims that self-report measures of self-control are better than performance-based measures.

Self-control and executive functioning are often treated as highly related psychological constructs. However, measures of each rarely correlate with one another. This reflects some combination of true separability between the constructs and measurement differences. Traditionally, executive functioning is objectively measured as performance on computer-controlled tasks in the laboratory, whereas self-control is subjectively measured with self-report scales of predispositions and behaviors in everyday life. Self-report measures tend to better predict outcomes that should be affected by individual differences in control. Our two studies show that the original version of Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone's brief self-control scale (consisting of four positive and nine negative items) strongly correlates with self-esteem, mental health, fluid intelligence, but only weakly with satisfaction with life and happiness. Four variants of the original scale were created by reverse-wording the 13 original items and recombining them to form, for example, versions with all positive or all negative items. As the proportion of items with positive valence increased: (1) the outcomes with strong correlations in the original scale weakened and the weak correlations strengthened and (2) the mean overall scores increased. Both studies replicated a common finding that the original scale yields two factors in an exploratory factor analysis. However, the second factor is generated by method differences, namely, having items with both positive and negative valence. The second factor is induced by the common practice of reverse-coding the items with negative valence and the faulty assumption that Likert scales are equal-interval scales with a neutral-point at midscale.

Predictions about the Cognitive Consequences of Language Switching on Executive Functioning Inspired by the Adaptive Control Hypothesis Fail More Often than Not.

The adaptive control hypothesis developed by Green and Abutalebi is the most influential theory of bilingual language control. The focus of this article is on the predictions that other researchers have derived based on the three different modes of interactional context described by the hypothesis. Foremost, that dual-language contexts should enhance domain-general executive functions more than single-language contexts. Several recent and ambitious behavioral tests of these predictions are reviewed. Although there was some evidence that dual-language contexts are associated with smaller switch costs, the evidence is inconsistent and there were no similar advantages for inhibitory control. The hypothesis also predicts neuroanatomical adaptations to the three types of interactional context. A careful evaluation of the relevant fMRI and ERP studies that take into account whether behavioral differences align with neuroscience differences and resolves valence ambiguities led to the conclusion that the neuroscience evidence for the hypothesis is, at best, inconsistent. The study also includes new analyses of two large-sample studies that enable the identification of relatively pure cases of single-language bilinguals, dual-language bilinguals, and dense-code switchers. Across nine different measures of executive functioning, the predicted advantage of the dual-language context never materialized. The hypotheses derived from the adaptive control hypothesis do not accurately predict behavioral performance on tests of executive functioning and do not advance our understanding as to what dimensions of bilingualism may lead to enhancements in specific components of executive functioning.

Autism Traits Predict Self-reported Executive Functioning Deficits in Everyday Life and an Aversion to Exercise.

Are Autism Quotient (AQ) scores related to executive functioning (EF)? We sampled 200 students of normal intelligence and examined the relationship between AQ scores and: (a) 5 self-ratings of EF, (b) 5 performance-based measures of EF, and (c) 5 types of activities or experiences that are assumed to recruit EF and sometimes enhance EF. Our findings reveal that as AQ scores increase, self-rated EF ability decreases. AQ scores and self-reported EF measures do not correlate with objective EF task performance. Furthermore, AQ scores were shown to be negatively associated with many specific types of physical activity. As AQ scores increase, individuals report fewer positive reasons for exercise and more rationalizations for not engaging in more exercise.

Interference scores have inadequate concurrent and convergent validity: Should we stop using the flanker, Simon, and spatial Stroop tasks?

BACKGROUND: Two-hundred one college undergraduates completed four nonverbal interference tasks (Simon, spatial Stroop, vertical Stroop, and flanker) and trait scales of self-control and impulsivity. Regression analyses tested 11 predictors of the composite interference scores derived from three of the four tasks and each task separately. The purpose of the study was to examine the relationships between laboratory measures of self-control, self-report measures, and the degree to which control might be related to extensive experience in activities that logically require self-control. RESULTS: Fluid intelligence and sex were significant predictors of the composite measure, but bilingualism, music training, video gaming, mindfulness/meditation, self-control, impulsivity, SES, and physical exercise were not. CONCLUSIONS: Common laboratory measures of inhibitory control do not correlate with self-reported measures of self-control or impulsivity and consequently appear to be measuring different constructs. Bilingualism, mindfulness/meditation, playing action video games, and music training or performance provide weak and inconsistent improvements to laboratory measures of interference control. Flanker, Simon, and spatial Stroop effects should not be used or interpreted as measures of domain-general inhibitory control.

On the ambiguity regarding the relationship between sequential congruency effects, bilingual advantages in cognitive control, and the disengagement of attention.

Grundy, Bialystok, and colleagues have reported that at short response-stimulus intervals bilinguals have smaller sequential congruency effects in flanker tasks compared to monolinguals. They interpret these differences to mean that bilinguals are more efficient at disengaging attentional control. Ten empirical studies are presented that show no differences between bilinguals and monolinguals under conditions that produced robust sequential congruency effects. These null results are discussed with respect to the rate at which sequential congruency effects dissipate and the fact these effects are not adaptive in the sense of improving overall performance. Arguments made by Goldsmith and Morton [1] that smaller sequential congruency effects should not be interpreted as "advantages" are extended. Evidence is also presented that neither simple congruency effects, nor sequential congruency effects, correlate across tasks. This lack of convergent validity is inconsistent with the hypothesis that either provides a measure of domain-general control that could underlie an advantage accrued through experience in switching languages. Results from other tasks purporting to show bilingual advantages in the disengagement of attention are also reviewed. We conclude that sequential congruency effects in nonverbal interference tasks and differences in the rate of disengaging attention are unlikely to contribute to our understanding of bilingual language control and that future research might productively examine differences in proactive rather than reactive control.

Bilingual Advantages in Inhibition or Selective Attention: More Challenges.

A large sample (N = 141) of college students participated in both a conjunctive visual search task and an ambiguous figures task that have been used as tests of selective attention. Tests for effects of bilingualism on attentional control were conducted by both partitioning the participants into bilinguals and monolinguals and by treating bilingualism as a continuous variable, but there were no effects of bilingualism in any of the tests. Bayes factor analyses confirmed that the evidence substantially favored the null hypothesis. These new findings mesh with failures to replicate language-group differences in congruency-sequence effects, inhibition-of-return, and working memory capacity. The evidence that bilinguals are better than monolinguals at attentional control is equivocal at best.