1. There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing, specifically inhibitory control and monitoring.
2. The measures and tasks typically used to test for differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in inhibitory control are not tapping into the same general ability.
3. Differences in monitoring between bilinguals and monolinguals have been inferred from two different measures, but a control condition of no-conflict trials is not always included in the experimental design.
The article "There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing" provides a critical analysis of the claim that bilingualism leads to enhanced cognitive control. The authors argue that while some studies have reported a bilingual advantage in tasks requiring executive processing, there is little convergent validity across different measures and tasks.
The article highlights the importance of grounding investigations of bilingual advantages in a specific conceptual framework that elucidates the nature of executive processes and guides operational definitions for manipulating and measuring them. However, the authors note that many studies have focused on only two of three components studied by Miyake and Friedman (switching and inhibition) and frequently employ tasks not tested by Miyake and Friedman, resulting in less convergent validity.
The article also critiques the use of inhibitory control as a marker for cognitive control, noting that the three most-frequently used nonlinguistic interference tasks (Simon, Stroop, and flanker) do not correlate with one another. The authors suggest that individual differences in interference tasks are usually low and seem sensitive to task variations.
Furthermore, the article questions the claim that bilingualism enhances monitoring abilities, arguing that differences in monitoring between bilinguals and monolinguals have been inferred from two different measures with questionable validity.
Overall, the article provides a critical perspective on claims about bilingual advantages in executive processing. It highlights potential biases in previous research, including limited convergent validity across measures and tasks, questionable markers for cognitive control, and unsupported claims about monitoring abilities.