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

An Author Correction to this article was published on 25 September 2019

An Author Correction to this article was published on 05 August 2019

This article has been updated (view changelog)


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 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 options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

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.

Data availability

The data are from the ABCD Study Curated Annual Release 1.0 and are available on request from the NIMH Data Archive (

Code availability

All software used in the present analysis is open source from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (version 3.5.0; ref. 70). The R code to replicate the analysis is available at

Change history

  • 25 September 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

  • 05 August 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. 1.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Compton, W. M., Dowling, G., & Garavan, H. Ensuring the best use of data: the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. JAMA Pediatrics (in the press).

  44. 44.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

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

  54. 54.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

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

  57. 57.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    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.

Corresponding author

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

Cite this article

Dick, A.S., Garcia, N.L., Pruden, S.M. et al. No evidence for a bilingual executive function advantage in the ABCD study. Nat Hum Behav 3, 692–701 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing