Decision Making
Second Language Decisions Task
Also called: foreign-language effect, bilingual decision making, language and moral judgment
Measure how decisions change with language. Participants make risk choices and everyday moral decisions in their first language and a language learned later.
8-12 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 132
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
Choose your languages
90 chairs are at risk.
90 sedie sono a rischio.
What it measures
Measures how risk choices and everyday moral decisions change between a first language and a language learned later. Participants choose both languages, report their reading proficiency, and make 24 choices in two language blocks.
Constructs
- Foreign-language effect
- Risk framing
- Moral judgment
- Bilingual decision making
Research uses
- Bilingualism research
- Judgment and decision-making studies
- Language context and everyday moral choices
How the paradigm works
This task compares decisions in a first language and a language learned later. The participant chooses both from English, Italian, German, Spanish, French, Japanese, Portuguese and Chinese, then reports when learning began and how well they can read the later-learned language. A practice reading check comes before each block. Each block has eight risky choices and four everyday moral choices. The same situations appear in both languages. Four risky situations use gain wording and four use loss wording, with the same frame for a situation in both languages. Order and answer positions come from the session seed.
Scores
- Reduction in Framingscore
- First-language framing effect minus later-language framing effect, from -2 to 2. Needs at least two matched situations in each frame.
- Positive means less framing in the later-learned language
- First-Language Framingscore
- Risky share under loss wording minus gain wording in the first language.
- Informational
- Later-Language Framingscore
- Risky share under loss wording minus gain wording in the later-learned language.
- Informational
- First Language, Gain Wording%
- Share choosing the risky plan in matched gain situations.
- Informational
- First Language, Loss Wording%
- Share choosing the risky plan in matched loss situations.
- Informational
- Later-Learned Language, Gain Wording%
- Share choosing the risky plan in matched gain situations.
- Informational
- Later-Learned Language, Loss Wording%
- Share choosing the risky plan in matched loss situations.
- Informational
- Difference in Moral Choicesscore
- Share accepting the action in the later-learned language minus the first language, over at least two matched everyday moral situations.
- A difference in choices, with no better direction
- First-Language Acceptance%
- Share accepting the action in matched moral situations in the first language.
- Informational
- Later-Language Acceptance%
- Share accepting the action in matched moral situations in the later-learned language.
- Informational
- Self-Rated Readingscore
- Reading in the later-learned language, 1 (a few words) to 5 (as easily as the first language).
- Self-report
- Reading Checks Correctcount
- Number of correct first answers to the two reading checks.
- 2 expected
- Median Decision Timems
- Median choice time, excluding responses under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Number of choices under 100 ms, retained as preferences.
- 0 expected
- Choicescount
- Number of unique readable decisions in the selected run.
- 24 expected
Use and evidence
132 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 67% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 203 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 33 |
| 2024 | 22 |
| 2023 | 33 |
| 2022 | 21 |
| 2021 | 23 |
| 2020 | 26 |
| 2019 | 22 |
| 2018 | 12 |
| 2017 | 12 |
| 2016 | 7 |
| 2015 | 9 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 1 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 1 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 4 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 7
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Own translated risk and everyday moral choices; two language blocks within person; no norms..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Languages
- Choose a first language and a different language learned later from 8 languages. Record learning age band and reading proficiency from 1 to 5.
- Situations
- 8 risk situations and 4 everyday moral situations, each shown in both languages: 24 choices in 2 blocks.
- Risk choices
- 90 objects at risk. The sure plan saves 30; the risky plan saves all 90 with a 1 in 3 chance, none otherwise. Each language has 4 gain and 4 loss wordings.
- Moral choices
- Promises, privacy, credit and restricted donations, with a choice to accept or reject an action that helps five people.
- Practice
- 1 reading check with feedback in each language. Failed checks are flagged in results.
- Order
- Seeded language order (standard), or first language first or later-learned language first. Seeded situation and answer order. No time limit.
- Scores
- Reduction in framing from the first to the later-learned language, each framing effect, and the difference in moral acceptance. Only matched situations enter the contrasts.
Published studies assigned one language per person. Here the same person sees both, so compare the same language pair, reading proficiency and block order. Our own moral situations concern everyday commitments rather than fatal dilemmas. Scores support research and do not diagnose. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: unique decisions in the most complete run with a supported first and later-learned language. Choices have no correct answer. An incomplete run, failed or missing reading checks, or reading proficiency below intermediate is flagged. Fewer than half the choices or a majority under 200 ms invalidate.
Why these rules
Risk and moral choices express preferences, so neither chance accuracy nor repeated choices is checked. The language comparison requires matched scenarios and enough reading proficiency to understand them. The two reading checks support interpretation and never turn a moral choice into a right or wrong answer.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Language order | Random (standard) | Random (standard), First language first, Later-learned language first |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Second Language Decisions Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Keysar B, Hayakawa SL, An SG, 2012; Costa A et al., 2014), with the standard settings (language order: Random). The main score was reduction in framing (first-language framing effect minus later-language framing effect, from -2 to 2).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178
- Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., & Keysar, B. (2014). Your morals depend on language. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094842
Source papers
- Keysar, Hayakawa and An (2012); Costa and colleagues (2014).Paradigm source, Adults using two supported languages
Questions
How long does the Second Language Decisions Task take?
About 8 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Reduction in Framing, First-Language Framing, Later-Language Framing, First Language, Gain Wording, First Language, Loss Wording, Later-Learned Language, Gain Wording, Later-Learned Language, Loss Wording, Difference in Moral Choices, First-Language Acceptance, Later-Language Acceptance, Self-Rated Reading, Reading Checks Correct, Median Decision Time, Choices Under 100 ms and Choices. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Second Language Decisions Task used in research?
132 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 67% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 203 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Second Language Decisions Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Language order (Random (standard), First language first, Later-learned language first). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.