Dear Colleagues,

As decision-makers in complex and volatile scenarios, we are constantly faced with the need to choose between alternative courses of action based on probabilistic cues and conflicting information. Neuroscientific evidence has shown that functions related to decision-making under risk or conflict are predominantly subserved by the medial and dorsolateral frontal cortices, along with corticostriatal networks and their integrated dopaminergic afferents (Gold and Shadlen, 2007).

In addition to individual difference variables, neurocognitive research has recently indicated the language in which decisions are made as a contextual factor that may influence decision outcomes. In particular, systematically different choices have been reported when decision problems and moral dilemmas are presented in a native (L1) vs. a foreign (L2) language (e.g., Keysar, Hayakawa, and An, 2012). The activation of systematic reasoning processes by thinking in a foreign language, which would lead to discrepant decisions induced by L1 and L2, has been termed the foreign language effect (FLE).

FLE was documented in decision-making involving risky prospects, including monetary decisions, where the decision maker cannot predict the outcome of a choice but knows the probabilities of all outcomes for alternative options (e.g., Hadjichristidis, Geipel, and Savadori, 2015). Systematic differences associated with L1 and L2 have also been detected in moral choices accompanied by conflict (e.g., Geipel, Hadjichristidis, and Surian 2015a), where the decision maker can predict the outcome of a choice and knows the probabilities of all outcomes for alternative options, but is pulled in contrary directions by rival moral reasons. In the Footbridge Dilemma, for example, an innocent bystander on a footbridge must be sacrificed to save five workers on a track from an out-of-control trolley moving in their direction. The decision maker, who must choose between sacrificing or not sacrificing the bystander, is confronted with two options, namely: (A) rejecting harm despite failing to maximize the number of saved lives, in accordance with the deontological perspective that the morality of actions is based on their intrinsic nature, and (B) maximizing the number of saved lives despite deliberately committing a harmful act, in accordance with the utilitarian perspective that the morality of actions is based on their outcomes. While most respondents choose not to kill the bystander, utilitarian behavior has been reported to increase when the dilemma is presented in a foreign language.

Given that decisions are frequently presented to people in a second language in modern globalized societies, the implications of FLE for socio-economic and public health policies are obviously far-reaching. It has even been proposed that language could be used as a “nudge” to improve people’s decisions and to guide the interventions of policy makers (e.g., Costa, Vives, and Corey, 2017).

However, to date, FLE has not been reported ubiquitously in decision-making, and the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the phenomenon remain poorly understood. The goal of this Special Issue is to bring together contributions that explicitly address the nature of such mechanisms across decision-making under risk, uncertainty, and (moral) conflict. This may possibly discriminate between competing hypotheses on FLE, and pave the way for a unitary account.

In this Issue, we aim to provide a collection of high-quality research/theoretical articles providing new insights on the neurocognitive underpinnings of the FLE. We welcome multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions. A non-exhaustive list of potential papers may include research involving the use of behavioral, neurophysiological, and brain imaging techniques in healthy and clinical populations.

Costa, A.; Vives, M.L.; Corey, J.D. On language processing shaping decision making. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 26, 146–151.

Geipel, J.; Hadjichristidis, C.; Surian, L. How foreign language shapes moral judgment. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 59, 8–17.

Gold, J.I.; Shadlen, M.N. The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2007, 30, 535–574.

Hadjichristidis, C.; Geipel, J.; Savadori, L. The effect of foreign language in judgments of risk and benefit: The role of affect. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2015, 21, 117.

Keysar, B.; Hayakawa, S.L.; An, S.G. The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 23, 661–668.

Dr. Abutalebi Jubin

Dr. Nicola Del Maschio

Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Brain Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• Foreign Language Effect
• FLE
• decision-making
• neurocognitive underpinnings
• risk