[mattfenwick]

The paper (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...) is not an example of good science.

First: did they even find some kind of correlation, or is it just a statistical aberration? Second: if they found a real correlation, is their explanation of why that correlation exists correct?

IMHO, their evidence does not support their claims. Where are the controls? What are the sampling biases? What are possible alternative explanations, and why are those not considered? What is the relationship between a person's response to a hypothetical situation and his/her actions in a real one?

They greatly overstate their findings in the discussion section. It's almost painful to read:

> We have shown that people’s moral judgments and decisions depend on the native-ness of the language in which a dilemma is presented, becoming more utilitarian in a foreign language.

> Most likely, a foreign language reduces emotional reactivity, promoting cost-benefit considerations, leading to an increase in utilitarian judgments.

> This discovery has important consequences for our globalized world as many individuals make moral judgments in both native and foreign languages. Immigrants face personal moral dilemmas in a foreign language on a daily basis, sometimes dilemmas with even larger stakes such as when serving as a jury member in a trial.

> Given that what we have discovered is surprising and unintuitive, increasing awareness of the impact of using a foreign language may help us check our decision-making context and make choices that are based on the things that should really matter.

> Foreign languages are used in international, multilingual forums such as the United Nations, the European Union, large investment firms and international corporations in general. Moral choices within these domains can be explained better, and are made more predictable by our discovery.

Wait, what? When was that covered in the rest of the paper?

[JumpCrisscross]

The premise had more potential. One set of individuals, evaluating a scenario presented to them in their native tongue, were found to react in a statistically significantly different way from a second set of individuals, evaluating the same scenario in a language foreign to them.

The problem is the people in group one are not the same as those in group two. Statistical controls can mitigate the risk of randomness crashing the party. But there is an experimental solution: have the same people evaluate similar situations in a foreign and their native tongues. That said, something gained if it inspires a more rigorous study.

[marcosdumay]

> have the same people evaluate similar situations in a foreign and their native tongues

Also does not work. You'll prime the test subject, and bias them.

[lutusp]

The paper (...) is not an example of good science.

Very true, good point. It's quite common to see a study that makes some observations, even rigorously controlled ones (this isn't an example), then offers a conclusion that isn't supported by the observations. People untrained in science notice the quality of the observations and think that supports the conclusion.

In this case, a correlation is established, then, when evidence for a cause-effect relationship is needed, the authors instead begin waving their arms.