Letter | Published:

No evidence for a bilingual executive function advantage in the nationally representative ABCD study


Learning a second language in childhood is inherently advantageous for communication. However, parents, educators and scientists have been interested in determining whether there are additional cognitive advantages. One of the most exciting yet controversial1 findings about bilinguals is a reported advantage for executive function. That is, several studies suggest that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals on tasks assessing cognitive abilities that are central to the voluntary control of thoughts and behaviours—the so-called ‘executive functions’ (for example, attention, inhibitory control, task switching and resolving conflict). Although a number of small-2,3,4 and large-sample5,6 studies have reported a bilingual executive function advantage (see refs. 7,8,9 for a review), there have been several failures to replicate these findings10,11,12,13,14,15, and recent meta-analyses have called into question the reliability of the original empirical claims8,9. Here we show, in a very large, demographically representative sample (n = 4,524) of 9- to 10-year-olds across the United States, that there is little evidence for a bilingual advantage for inhibitory control, attention and task switching, or cognitive flexibility, which are key aspects of executive function. We also replicate previously reported disadvantages in English vocabulary in bilinguals7,16,17. However, these English vocabulary differences are substantially mitigated when we account for individual differences in socioeconomic status or intelligence. In summary, notwithstanding the inherently positive benefits of learning a second language in childhood18, we found little evidence that it engenders additional benefits to executive function development.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The data are from the ABCD Study Curated Annual Release 1.0 and are available on request from the NIMH Data Archive (https://data-archive.nimh.nih.gov/abcd).

Code availability

All software used in the present analysis is open source from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (version 3.5.0; ref. 69). The R code to replicate the analysis is available at https://github.com/anthonystevendick/bilingual_abcd.


  1. 1.

    Morton, J. B. Still waiting for real answers. Cortex 73, 352–353 (2015).

  2. 2.

    Bialystok, E. Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Dev. 70, 636–644 (1999).

  3. 3.

    Carlson, S. M. & Meltzoff, A. N. Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Dev. Sci. 11, 282–298 (2008).

  4. 4.

    Prior, A. & MacWhinney, B. A bilingual advantage in task switching. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 13, 253–262 (2010).

  5. 5.

    Hartanto, A., Toh, W. X. & Yang, H. Bilingualism narrows socioeconomic disparities in executive functions and self-regulatory behaviors during early childhood: evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Child Dev. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13032 (2018).

  6. 6.

    Santillan, J. & Khurana, A. Developmental associations between bilingual experience and inhibitory control trajectories in head start children. Dev. Sci. 21, e12624 (2018).

  7. 7.

    Luk, G., De, Sa,E. & Bialystok, E. Is there a relation between onset age of bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 14, 588–595 (2011).

  8. 8.

    Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A. & Sawi, O. Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex 69, 265–278 (2015).

  9. 9.

    Lehtonen, M. et al. Is bilingualism associated with enhanced executive functioning in adults? A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 144, 394–425 (2018).

  10. 10.

    Brito, N. H., Noble, K. G. & Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics Study. The independent and interacting effects of socioeconomic status and dual-language use on brain structure and cognition. Dev. Sci. 21, e12688 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Morton, J. B. & Harper, S. N. What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. Dev. Sci. 10, 719–726 (2007).

  12. 12.

    Anton, E. et al. Is there a bilingual advantage in the ANT task? Evidence from children. Front. Psychol. 5, 398 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Von Bastian, C. C., Souza, A. S. & Gade, M. No evidence for bilingual cognitive advantages: a test of four hypotheses. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 246–258 (2016).

  14. 14.

    Gathercole, V. C. et al. Does language dominance affect cognitive performance in bilinguals? Lifespan evidence from preschoolers through older adults on card sorting, Simon, and metalinguistic tasks. Front. Psychol. 5, 11 (2014).

  15. 15.

    Paap, K. R. & Greenberg, Z. I. There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cogn. Psychol. 66, 232–258 (2013).

  16. 16.

    Hoff, E. et al. Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. J. Child Lang. 39, 1–27 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Hoff, E. & Core, C. What clinicians need to know about bilingual development. Semin. Speech Lang. 36, 89–99 (2015).

  18. 18.

    Callahan, R. M. & Gåndara, P. C. The Bilingual Advantage: Language, Literacy and the US Labor Market (Short Run Press, 2014).

  19. 19.

    Bialystok, E. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

  20. 20.

    Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. C. & Sanchez, M. The cognitive development of young dual language learners: a critical review. Early Child Res. Q. 29, 699–714 (2014).

  21. 21.

    Crago, M. & Dussias, G. Introduction. Appl. Psycholinguist. 35, 855 (2014).

  22. 22.

    Issue, S. Bilingualism forum. Cortex 73, 330–377 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Garavan, H. et al. Recruiting the ABCD sample: design considerations and procedures. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 16–22 (2018).

  24. 24.

    Martin-Rhee, M. M. & Bialystok, E. The development of two types of inhibitory control in monolingual and bilingual children. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 11, 81–93 (2008).

  25. 25.

    Kapa, L. L. & Colombo, J. Attentional control in early and later bilingual children. Cogn. Dev. 28, 233–246 (2013).

  26. 26.

    Bialystok, E. & Viswanathan, M. Components of executive control with advantages for bilingual children in two cultures. Cognition 112, 494–500 (2009).

  27. 27.

    Gershon, R. C. et al. IV. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): measuring language (vocabulary comprehension and reading decoding). Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 78, 49–69 (2013).

  28. 28.

    Zelazo, P. D. et al. The development of executive function in early childhood. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 68, vii–137 (2003).

  29. 29.

    Casey, B. J. et al. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 43–54 (2018).

  30. 30.

    Hilchey, M. D. & Klein, R. M. Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 625–658 (2011).

  31. 31.

    Green, D. W. Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 1, 67–81 (1998).

  32. 32.

    Costa, A., Hernandez, M., Costa-Faidella, J. & Sebastian-Galles, N. On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition 113, 135–149 (2009).

  33. 33.

    Altman, D. G. & Bland, J. M. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Br. Med. J. 311, 485 (1995).

  34. 34.

    Ialongo, C. The logic of equivalence testing and its use in laboratory medicine. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb) 27, 5–13 (2017).

  35. 35.

    Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Erlbaum, 1988).

  36. 36.

    Zelazo, P. D. et al. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): validation of executive function measures in adults. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 20, 620–629 (2014).

  37. 37.

    De Bruin, A., Treccani, B. & Della Sala, S. Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: an example of publication bias? Psychol. Sci. 26, 99–107 (2015).

  38. 38.

    Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D. & Simmons, J. P. P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 534–547 (2014).

  39. 39.

    Bland, M. Do baseline P-values follow a uniform distribution in randomised trials? PLoS One 8, e76010 (2013).

  40. 40.

    Besag, J. & Clifford, P. Sequential Monte Carlo p-values. Biometrika 78, 301–304 (1991).

  41. 41.

    Akshoomoff, N. et al. The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: results from a large normative developmental sample (PING). Neuropsychology 28, 1–10 (2014).

  42. 42.

    Jernigan, T. L. & Brown, S. A. Introduction. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 1–3 (2018).

  43. 43.

    Barch, D. M. et al. Demographic, physical and mental health assessments in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study: rationale and description. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 55–66 (2018).

  44. 44.

    Place, S. & Hoff, E. Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2-year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Dev. 82, 1834–1849 (2011).

  45. 45.

    Blumenfeld, H. K. & Marian, V. Cognitive control in bilinguals: advantages in stimulus–stimulus inhibition. Biling. (Camb. Engl.) 17, 610–629 (2014).

  46. 46.

    Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R. & Viswanathan, M. Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. Psychol. Aging 19, 290–303 (2004).

  47. 47.

    Ansaldo, A. I., Ghazi-Saidi, L. & Adrover-Roig, D. Interference control in elderly bilinguals: appearances can be misleading. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 37, 455–470 (2015).

  48. 48.

    Bialystok, E. & Barac, R. Emerging bilingualism: dissociating advantages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition 122, 67–73 (2012).

  49. 49.

    Zucker, R. A. et al. Assessment of culture and environment in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development study: rationale, description of measures, and early data. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 107–120 (2018).

  50. 50.

    Weintraub, S. et al. I. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): introduction and pediatric data. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 78, 1–15 (2013).

  51. 51.

    Zelazo, P. D. et al. II. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): measuring executive function and attention. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 78, 16–33 (2013).

  52. 52.

    Logan, G. D. On the Ability to Inhibit Thought and Action: a Users’ Guide to the Stop Signal Paradigm (Academic Press, 1994).

  53. 53.

    Akshoomoff, N. et al. VIII. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): composite scores of crystallized, fluid, and overall cognition. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 78, 119–132 (2013).

  54. 54.

    Von Hippel, P. T. Regression with missing Ys: an improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociol. Methodol. 37, 83–117 (2007).

  55. 55.

    Wood, S. Generlized Additive Models: An Introduction with R (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006).

  56. 56.

    Mezzacappa, E. Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: developmental properties and sociodemographic correlates in an epidemiological sample of young, urban children. Child Dev. 75, 1373–1386 (2004).

  57. 57.

    Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F. & Farah, M. J. Neurocognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Dev. Sci. 8, 74–87 (2005).

  58. 58.

    Carlson, S. M. & Moses, L. J. Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Dev. 72, 1032–1053 (2001).

  59. 59.

    Hughes, C. Finding your marbles: does preschoolers’ strategic behavior predict later understanding of mind? Dev. Psychol. 34, 1326–1339 (1998).

  60. 60.

    Engel de Abreu, P. M., Cruz-Santos, A., Tourinho, C. J., Martin, R. & Bialystok, E. Bilingualism enriches the poor: enhanced cognitive control in low-income minority children. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1364–1371 (2012).

  61. 61.

    Friedman, N. P. et al. Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychol. Sci. 17, 172–179 (2006).

  62. 62.

    Smith, B. L., Smith, T. D., Taylor, L. & Hobby, M. Relationship between intelligence and vocabulary. Percept. Mot. Skills 100, 101–108 (2005).

  63. 63.

    Deyo, R. A., Diehl, A. K., Hazuda, H. & Stern, M. P. A simple language-based acculturation scale for Mexican Americans: validation and application to health care research. Am. J. Public Health 75, 51–55 (1985).

  64. 64.

    Anderson, S. & Hauck, W. W. A new procedure for testing equivalence in comparative bioavailability and other clinical trials. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 12, 2663–2692 (1983).

  65. 65.

    Counsell, A. & Cribbie, R. A. Equivalence tests for comparing correlation and regression coefficients. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 68, 292–309 (2015).

  66. 66.

    Kelley, K. & Preacher, K. J. On effect size. Psychol. Methods 17, 137–152 (2012).

  67. 67.

    Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013).

  68. 68.

    Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A. & Sawi, O. Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences. J. Cogn. Psychol. 26, 615–639 (2014).

  69. 69.

    R Core Development Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

Download references


We thank the families and children who participated, and continue to participate, in the ABCD study, as well as staff at the study sites, Data Analysis and Informatics Core (DAIC), and site personnel involved in data collection and curating the data release. We also thank A. Counsell for discussion on the equivalence testing approach and for sharing R code. This study was supported by an NIH/NIDA U01DA041156 ABCD study grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

A.S.D. originally conceived the study, analysed the data and wrote the draft manuscript. A.S.D. and W.K.T. designed the analysis. N.L.G., S.M.P., S.W.H., M.T.S., M.C.R., A.R.L. and R.G. contributed to the conception, discussion, data collection, curation of the data and write-up of the study. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Correspondence to Anthony Steven Dick.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1: Results of the tests of equivalence for the standardized regression slope β.
Fig. 2: Histograms representing the frequency of P values for n = 30 of 5,000 bootstrap replicates, for OLS regressions with no covariates.