1. Introduction
Emotional experiences, or feelings, are intertwined with language (e.g., Lindquist, Satpute & Gendron, Reference Lindquist, Satpute and Gendron2015), which may lead to differential emotional reactions in unbalanced bilinguals’ dominant first language (L1) and weaker second language (L2) (e.g., Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, Reference Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçeği-Dinn2009). While bilinguals’ language-dependent emotions have been a topic of continued interest over the past decades, researchers have faced the latent problem that language is part of the research problem and the method when bilinguals verbally report on their feelings. In fact, verbalization shapes initially nonverbal dimensions of emotion (Kassam & Mendes, Reference Kassam and Mendes2013), and the choice of the language used to ask bilinguals about their feelings influences the response (Marian & Neisser, Reference Marian and Neisser2000). In search for nonverbal measurement alternatives in monolingual contexts, Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018) recently showed that the voluntary muscle force applied when squeezing a handheld dynamometer predicts later eating behavior better than verbal ratings of hunger. Therefore, our research extended this novel methodology. Here, we explored if reporting the intensity of feelings nonverbally via grip force and duration offers a more valid assessment of language-dependent feelings than verbal ratings by comparing these explicit ratings to pupil reactions induced by emotional intensity.
1.1. Emotions, feelings, and language
Emotions can be understood as experiential, physiological, and behavioral reactions to personally relevant external and internal stimuli (Mauss & Robinson, Reference Mauss and Robinson2009). Researchers have developed several emotion theories which conceptualize them, for example, as discrete states such as happiness, anger, or fear (e.g., Ekman, Reference Ekman1992) or as ad hoc combinations of a few affectual dimensions, most importantly of how pleasurable (positive vs. negative valence) and intense (low vs. high arousal) individuals experience an emotional reaction (e.g., Russell, Reference Russell2003; Russell & Barrett, Reference Russell and Barrett1999). Although valence and arousal are theoretically distinct, empirical ratings of words (e.g., Bradley & Lang, Reference Bradley and Lang1999) and pictures (e.g., Kurdi, Lozano & Banaji, Reference Kurdi, Lozano and Banaji2017) suggest a skewed U-shaped relationship between them, since strongly negative and strongly positive stimuli also tend to be more arousing and strongly negative ones most arousing.
According to the dimensional theory of constructed emotion (Barrett, Reference Barrett2006; Gendron, Lindquist, Barsalou & Barrett, Reference Gendron, Lindquist, Barsalou and Barrett2012), language (re-)constructs or shapes emotion by providing category labels such as “happiness”, “anger”, and “fear” that allow us to bundle affectual sensations as self-conscious experiences (Lindquist et al., Reference Lindquist, Satpute and Gendron2015). While a recent analysis of almost 2500 languages (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Watts, Henry, List, Forkel, Mucha, Greenhill, Gray and Lindquist2019) found that all languages differentiate emotions along the basic affect dimensions of valence and arousal, it also showed that their semantics of specific emotion terms such as “anger” and “shame” vary. Linguistic effects on emotion construction and perception may therefore depend on language-specific emotion vocabulary (Majid, Reference Majid2012).
However, not all dimensions of emotion can be expressed verbally because emotions are not only represented or constructed in the brain but partially embodied (Niedenthal, Reference Niedenthal2007), i.e., perceptually, somatoviscerally, and motorically re-experienced. In a very broad sense, feelings are mental experiences of emotions that range from the perception of motivational, or visceral, bodily sensations, i.e., “gut feelings” such as hunger and thirst, to cognitively complex states such as compassion and gratitude (Damasio & Carvalho, Reference Damasio and Carvalho2013).
Apart from its constructive function, the verbalization of emotions, or “affect labelling”, i.e., translating feelings into verbal or other symbolic labels in self-report, typically reduces the intensity of explicit and implicit emotions (for review, see Torre & Lieberman, Reference Torre and Lieberman2018). For example, Kassam and Mendes (Reference Kassam and Mendes2013) asked participants to solve mathematical tasks that induced a non-self-conscious emotion (anger), a self-conscious one (shame), or no emotion. Half of the participants verbally rated their feelings on numerical scales with verbal anchors, whereas the other half completed an unrelated control questionnaire. The authors measured a range of cardiovascular reactions indicating that participants responded to the emotion induction, e.g., with higher heart rates during anger and shame, but these reactions were weaker when participants rated their feelings verbally.
More generally, affect labelling has been interpreted as a case of verbal overshadowing (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, Reference Schooler and Engstler-Schooler1990), which refers to the distortion of a range of initially nonverbal experiences such as taste preferences (Wilson & Schooler, Reference Wilson and Schooler1991), body movements (Defrasne Ait-Said, Maquestiaux & Didierjean, Reference Defrasne Ait-Said, Maquestiaux and Didierjean2014), and emotions (Kassam & Mendes, Reference Kassam and Mendes2013; Lieberman et al., Reference Lieberman, Eisenberger, Crockett, Tom, Pfeifer and Way2007). Verbal overshadowing has been alternatively attributed to insufficient verbal abilities that result in a distorted perception of non-verbal experiences (e.g., Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, Reference Schooler and Engstler-Schooler1990) or to a disadvantageous shift from a holistic and intuitive to an analytic and deliberate processing and decision mode in tasks where intuition would be more apt (e.g., Dijksterhuis, Reference Dijksterhuis2004).
In a recent approach to minimize verbal overshadowing, Creswell et al. (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018) validated reporting hunger as a visceral feeling by squeezing a handheld dynamometer, compared to rating it on a verbal self-report scale. They asked participants who had not eaten for at least four hours to report on their hunger before they were presented with and allowed to eat as much popcorn as they wished. In three conditions, participants indicated their hunger by rating it on a numerical self-report scale with verbal anchors ranging from 0 (= “not hungry at all”) to 100 (= “the most intense hunger I have ever felt”) and then, by squeezing a dynamometer (verbal first condition). Alternatively, they started with squeezing the dynamometer before the verbal rating (nonverbal first) or reported hunger only nonverbally. Results showed that the dynamometer responses in the nonverbal and nonverbal first condition, which were a compound measure of grip force and duration, predicted actual eating behavior well (r > .50) and better than verbal hunger ratings (r < .17). However, if the nonverbal rating followed the verbal one, it was an equally poor predictor of popcorn consumption. In a replication (Creswell et al., Reference Creswell, Sayette, Skrzynski, Wright, Schooler and Sehic2019), squeeze recordings of the urge to smoke also tended to be more reliable predictors than verbal ratings of latencies to smoke, i.e., how long smokers would wait to light a cigarette after at least 6 hours of abstinence. Theoretically, one could either argue that the attempt to verbalize the nonverbal visceral experience of hunger or urge to smoke is difficult, which yields unreliable measurements, or that the verbalization induces less intuitive and more deliberate decision processes during self-report. Creswell et al. (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018, Reference Creswell, Sayette, Skrzynski, Wright, Schooler and Sehic2019) concluded that applying a dynamometer as a measurement instrument for self-conscious experiences is a promising alternative to verbal self-reports whenever verbalization, i.e., language, modulates the feelings to be reported. Bilinguals’ language-dependent emotions may be such a case.
1.2. Language-dependent emotions
Cross-experimentally, evidence for language-dependent emotions in unbalanced bilinguals – typically reduced ones in L2 – has been found in a variety of different measures such as electrodermal activity (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, Reference Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçeği-Dinn2009; Harris, Ayçiçeği-Dinn & Gleason, Reference Harris, Ayçiçeği-Dinn and Gleason2003), pupillometry (García-Palacios et al., Reference García-Palacios, Costa, Castilla, Del Río, Casaponsa and Duñabeitia2018; Iacozza, Costa & Duñabeitia, Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Thoma, Reference Thoma2021; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019; Toivo & Scheepers, Reference Toivo and Scheepers2019), event-related potential (ERP) in brain activity (Jończyk, Boutonnet, Musiał, Hoemann & Thierry, Reference Jończyk, Boutonnet, Musiał, Hoemann and Thierry2016; Opitz & Degner, Reference Opitz and Degner2012; Sianipar, Middelburg & Dijkstra, Reference Sianipar, Middelburg and Dijkstra2015), word-based Stroop and Simon tasks (Sheikh & Titone, Reference Sheikh and Titone2016; Sutton, Altarriba, Gianico & Basnight-Brown, Reference Sutton, Altarriba, Gianico and Basnight-Brown2007), hypothetical decision making (Costa et al., Reference Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa, Aparici, Apesteguia, Heafner and Keysar2014; Keysar, Hayakawa & An, Reference Keysar, Hayakawa and An2012) and explicit self-report (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, Reference Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçeği-Dinn2009; Dewaele, Reference Dewaele2004, Reference Dewaele2008; Imbault, Titone, Warriner & Kuperman, Reference Imbault, Titone, Warriner and Kuperman2021; Vélez-Uribe & Rosselli, Reference Vélez-Uribe and Rosselli2019). Explanations for bilinguals’ language-dependent emotions are still debated (see Thoma, Reference Thoma2021; Williams, Srinivasan, Liu, Lee & Zhou, Reference Williams, Srinivasan, Liu, Lee and Zhou2020 for review and empirical testing). In short, contextual accounts emphasize the role of different contexts of language learning and use, age of acquisition (AoA), and cultural expectations, whereas processing accounts assume structurally similar but less fluent emotion processing in L2 than L1.
Further, there is little bilingual emotion research using multi-measure designs, and in these studies the findings derived from neuro-physiological and self-report measures do not always align. We limit the following review to skin conductance response (SCR) and pupillometry studies, but similar discrepancies have been observed between ERP and verbal responses (Jończyk et al., Reference Jończyk, Boutonnet, Musiał, Hoemann and Thierry2016; Wu & Thierry, Reference Wu and Thierry2012). For example, Harris et al. (Reference Harris, Ayçiçeği-Dinn and Gleason2003) asked Turkish–English bilinguals to rate neutral and differentially valenced emotion words on a 1–7 scale for unpleasantness and simultaneously monitored SCR via fingertip electrodes. The SCR showed main effects of language and valence with stronger automatic reactions in L1 Turkish most clearly for taboo words and reprimands, while the verbal ratings were very similar across languages. In a replication (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, Reference Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçeği-Dinn2009, Exp. 1), the authors observed main yet no interaction effects of language and emotion word category in SCR, although the two factors yielded main and interaction effects in the verbal rating. The authors did not discuss these discrepancies. Using similar measures, Jankowiak and Korpal (Reference Jankowiak and Korpal2018) investigated if emotion-laden narratives in L1-Polish induced more intense SCR and verbal emotion ratings than in L2-English. Whereas SCR indicated physiologically stronger reactions in L1 than L2, the verbal ratings on semantic differentials with emotion adjectives as anchors were similar across languages. In their discussion, the authors questioned the reliability of their verbal measure as it may have been biased by social desirability or intimidation.
Compared to SCR, pupillometry is a relatively new and even less intrusive method for studying language-dependent emotions. Changes in pupil diameter result from the interplay of the sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic nervous systems in respectively prompting the dilator and sphincter pupillae muscles in the iris to widen or constrict the pupil (McDougal & Gamlin, Reference McDougal and Gamlin2015). Beyond its bi-directional sensitivity to differences in brightness (or luminance), the pupil reliably dilates as a function of the intensity of cognitive and affective processing (Beatty, Reference Beatty1982; Bradley, Miccoli, Escrig & Lang, Reference Bradley, Miccoli, Escrig and Lang2008; Janisse, Reference Janisse1973). Although the pupil is sensitive to differences in valence and arousal, its dilation shows a skewed U-shaped response pattern similar to behavioral ratings (Bradley et al., Reference Bradley, Miccoli, Escrig and Lang2008). Accordingly, dilation increases with arousal, is usually indicative of the intensity of valence but cannot distinguish its polarity (Collins, Ellsworth & Helmreich, Reference Collins, Ellsworth and Helmreich1967). This led pupil researchers to work with “emotional intensity” (Mathôt, Grainger & Strijkers, Reference Mathôt, Grainger and Strijkers2017) or “emotionality” (Citron, Gray, Critchley, Weekes & Ferstl, Reference Citron, Gray, Critchley, Weekes and Ferstl2014) defined as a stimulus’ absolute positive or negative deviation from neutral valence. As L2 processing is associated with increased cognitive load relative to the more fluent L1 (Oganian, Korn & Heekeren, Reference Oganian, Korn and Heekeren2016; J. Schmidtke, Reference Schmidtke2014), pupillometry studies on bilingual emotions should disentangle cognitive and affective causes of pupil dilation. In addition to a baseline correction for individual differences in pupil size and responsiveness, the multi-measure studies reviewed in the following have consequently implemented factorial designs crossing language and arousal/emotional intensity.
Iacozza et al. (Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017) used a language (L1 Spanish vs. L2 English) by “emotionality” (neutral with low arousal vs. negative with high arousal) pupillometry design. Participants read sentences with emotion-manipulated adjective-noun phrases on an eye-tracked screen and instantly rated the “emotional impact” of each sentence (1 = “low, neutral impact”; 7 = “high, negative impact”) in the language of the item. Pupil reactions were stronger to sentences with normatively higher emotionality. There was no main effect of language but a two-way interaction, such that the difference between neutral-low and negative-high sentences was significantly larger in L1 than in L2. However, verbal ratings showed a comparable emotionality effect in both languages. The authors only discussed the pupil-based language-emotionality interaction.
García-Palacios et al. (Reference García-Palacios, Costa, Castilla, Del Río, Casaponsa and Duñabeitia2018) varied the language (L1 Spanish vs. L2 English) of a fear conditioning paradigm cueing the expectation of a threat or not (neutral condition) during specific trials in a visual task. The threat, a mild electric shock, never occurred in fact. The authors measured SCR and pupil dilation relative to pre-trial baseline activity. Both measures showed a main effect of the fear condition with stronger reactions after a threat, a main effect of language with a higher level of reactivity in L2 and, importantly, a significant interaction such that the threat-neutral difference was more pronounced in L1 than L2. Interestingly, the two psychophysiological measures aligned, but the interaction effect was stronger and more reliable in the pupil data.
Toivo and Scheepers (Reference Toivo and Scheepers2019) presented German–English and Finnish–English late bilinguals and an L1 English control group with an eye-tracked word recognition judgement task containing low vs. high arousal words statistically matched on various other characteristics including valence. Note that high-arousal words still were 1.3 to 1.9 times more negative than low-arousal on average. Participants started the task in L1 or L2. Notably and similar to Iacozza et al. (Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017), participants’ pupil dilation was more sensitive to the arousal manipulation in their L1 than L2. Accuracy in the word judgement task was >95% in all language conditions and practically identical for low and high arousal, so that it did not warrant conclusions about language-dependent emotions (speed was not measured).
Finally, Thoma and Baum (Reference Thoma and Baum2019, Study 2) measured German–English bilinguals’ pupil reactions during a sad high arousal advertising video which induced emotional reactions with a narrative in L1 or L2. Pupil dilation computed relative to a neutral low arousal street surveillance video was stronger in L1 than L2 with and without additional cognitive load indicating higher arousal than in L2. After watching the video, participants also reported their feelings on a pictorial valence scale with emoticons (Bradley & Lang, Reference Bradley and Lang1999). Pupil dilation and self-reports correlated moderately, but the authors did not conduct inferential analyses on self-reported feelings.
In sum, even though emotions should be studied with a multi-method approach, different measures of emotion cannot necessarily be used and interpreted interchangeably (Mauss & Robinson, Reference Mauss and Robinson2009). It may well be that the effects of emotion-evocative linguistic stimuli differ systematically between emotion measures, but there is scarce evidence if and how these measurement issues affect bilingual emotion research.
1.3. Linguistic measurement equivalence
Research on language-dependent emotions usually uses stimuli that do not cause comprehension problems in any language condition. Explicit verbal measures of emotion may still be biased by the language of the question and response scales themselves (Dewaele, Reference Dewaele2013; Weijters, Puntoni & Baumgartner, Reference Weijters, Puntoni and Baumgartner2017). Some of the earliest research on bilinguals’ emotions recognized that their narratives of autobiographical memories were more emotional, e.g., in the valence and arousal intensity of their words, if the language of encoding and retrieval were congruent (Marcos, Reference Marcos1976; Marian & Neisser, Reference Marian and Neisser2000). This illustrates that the measurement and conceptual problem are intertwined. Language choice could simply influence the accessibility of memory, or it could evoke culture-specific mindsets and expectations in bilinguals. The latter concept has been referred to as cultural frame switching (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee & Morris, Reference Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee and Morris2002). In many studies, the contribution of the linguistic measurement as such to the observed effects is unclear. For example, in a study by Dylman and Bjärtå (Reference Dylman and Bjärtå2019), bilinguals reported higher levels of emotional distress after reading negative texts in L1 Swedish and answering the following questions in the congruent language. When they answered in L2 English, however, they reported lower levels of distress. The verbal ratings did not allow the researchers to attribute this asynchrony to differences in emotion or in L2 processing load. Further, Noriega and Blair (Reference Noriega and Blair2008) found Hispanics in the United States to verbally report more emotional thoughts after reading same-content advertising slogans in Spanish than English, but they did not ask them to report on English in Spanish and vice versa. Finally, in a survey study (Ross, Xun & Wilson, Reference Ross, Xun and Wilson2002), Chinese–English bilinguals described themselves as more collective-minded and reported lower self-esteem on a verbal rating scale (“strongly disagree” – “strongly agree”) in Chinese than English. Admittedly, cultural frame switching can also be induced with nonverbal stimuli (Benet-Martínez et al., Reference Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee and Morris2002), and some studies suggest that linguistic measurement inequivalence and cultural frame switching are less of an issue in “fully balanced” bilingual populations (e.g., Schwartz et al., Reference Schwartz, Benet-Martínez, Knight, Unger, Zamboanga, Des Rosiers, Stephens, Huang and Szapocznik2014). We still do not know if the exemplary findings reported above would have been similar if participants had responded nonverbally.
In a series of nine studies, Langhe, Puntoni, Fernandes, and van Osselaer (Reference Langhe, Puntoni, Fernandes and van Osselaer2011) tested the influence of the language of verbal scales on bilingual emotion ratings. The authors argued that bilinguals interpret emotion-word scale anchors such as “happy” vs. “sad” less intensely in L2, so that they perceive them as more similar, mentally contract the scale between them and consequently, provide more extreme ratings in L2. They demonstrated this so-called anchor contraction effect (ACE) for ratings of nonverbal and language-specific verbal emotional stimuli, which participants consistently rated more emotionally intense on L2 scales. The ACE occurred independently of bilinguals’ lower emotion ratings for L2 stimuli on L1 scales and on unipolar scales. However, when the authors added emoticons or dots in shades of red to the numerically labelled scale points between the two verbal anchors on bipolar scales, the ACE disappeared.
All in all, verbalization as such (Dhar & Gorlin, Reference Dhar and Gorlin2013; Dijksterhuis, Reference Dijksterhuis2004) and L2 use (Costa et al., Reference Costa, Foucart, Hayakawa, Aparici, Apesteguia, Heafner and Keysar2014; Keysar et al., Reference Keysar, Hayakawa and An2012) can induce more deliberate decision making which can alter self-reported emotions, i.e., feelings, relative to their nonverbal experience. Pictorial labels such as emoticons or colors on rating scale points can reduce disruptive effects of language (Langhe et al., Reference Langhe, Puntoni, Fernandes and van Osselaer2011), but as they are also symbolic, they can still distort non-cognitive components of emotion (Kassam & Mendes, Reference Kassam and Mendes2013). There is also no guarantee that bilingual participants will not subconsciously translate symbolic information, e.g., the facial expression of an emoticon, into divergent language-specific emotion vocabulary (Barbieri, Kruszewski, Ronzano & Saggion, Reference Barbieri, Kruszewski, Ronzano, Saggion, Hanjalic, Snoek, Worring, Bulterman, Huet, Kelliher, Kompatsiaris and Li2016; Gendron et al., Reference Gendron, Lindquist, Barsalou and Barrett2012). Consequently, it is important to validate verbal self-reports on emotion against nonverbal measurement alternatives.
2. The present study
The aim of the present research was to validate the force and duration of squeezing a dynamometer as nonverbal, visceral measures of self-reported language-dependent emotions experienced by bilinguals. Therefore, we replicated and extended two prior experiments (Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019) using a multi-measure approach. This allowed us to cross-validate physiological (pupil dilation), visceral (grip force and duration), and verbal (self-report rating scale) measures of emotional reactions to stimuli presented either in the bilinguals’ L1 or L2. In both experiments, we tested three hypotheses.
We developed two replication hypotheses following the original research (Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019). First, we hypothesized that unbalanced bilinguals’ emotions are stronger in L1 than in L2 (H1). Second, we assumed that stimulus emotionality moderates the language effect, such that negatively valenced high-arousal stimuli cause larger L1 vs. L2 emotion differences, compared to neutral-low arousing ones (H2). Finally, our main hypothesis followed from the observation that verbal reporting may alter (visceral) feelings (Creswell et al., Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018; Kassam & Mendes, Reference Kassam and Mendes2013; Lieberman et al., Reference Lieberman, Eisenberger, Crockett, Tom, Pfeifer and Way2007), which are mental experiences of emotions (Damasio & Carvalho, Reference Damasio and Carvalho2013). Emotions, in turn, are reflected in pupil dilation as an automatic – and thereby, unbiased – reaction of the sympathetic nervous system to emotional stimuli (Bradley et al., Reference Bradley, Miccoli, Escrig and Lang2008). Accordingly, we hypothesized that visceral measures (grip force and duration) are better predictors of language-dependent implicit emotional reactions (pupil dilation) than verbal emotion ratings (H3).
To test the hypotheses, both experiments used a 2 (language: L1 German vs. L2 English) by 2 (emotionality: low vs. high) design with language as between and emotionality as within-subjects factor. We operationalized the emotionality conditions with stimuli of neutral valence with low arousal vs. negative valence with high arousal because prior research showed (a) the largest behavioral differences in valence- and arousal-induced intensity of emotional reactions between these conditions (Bradley & Lang, Reference Bradley and Lang1999; Kurdi et al., Reference Kurdi, Lozano and Banaji2017) and (b) that pupil dilation is more sensitive to this contrast in L1 than L2 (García-Palacios et al., Reference García-Palacios, Costa, Castilla, Del Río, Casaponsa and Duñabeitia2018; Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019; Toivo & Scheepers, Reference Toivo and Scheepers2019). We estimated a sample size of about 30 per language condition and experiment a priori, given that Creswell et al. (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018) observed relatively strong correlations between their dynamometer measure of hunger and popcorn consumption in the nonverbal and nonverbal first groups (r > .5, n = 35). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to minimize traffic in the lab and the same participants took part in the same language conditions of both studies. They started with the first experiment which took about 35 minutes and had a 10-minute break afterwards, while the experimenter vented the room. Next, they completed the second experiment and the control and background tasks which took another 25 minutes before they were debriefed. Both experiments complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.
3. Study 1: Reading-induced emotions
Study 1 replicated the Spanish–English pupillometry experiment by Iacozza et al. (Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017) in a German–English setting, where participants verbally rated the emotionality of individual sentences. We extended the task in that participants reported their perceived emotional intensity prior to each verbal rating by squeezing a dynamometer.
3.1. Method
Participants
The study included 66 participants with a mean age of 22.56 years (SD = 7.87) who took part for course credit or €10. All 45 female and 21 male participants were Germans, AoA: M = .33, SD = .95, who had learned English as a foreign language in school for at least nine years, AoA: M = 7.68, SD = 1.76. We tested their degree of bilingualism with a self-assessment and lexical decision task as well as with a language-learning-and-use questionnaire (all adopted from Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019).
According to their mean self-assessment of speaking, reading, writing, listening, and grammar skills on 7-point scales, participants’ proficiency in L1 German (M = 6.47, SD = .65) was significantly higher than in L2 English, M = 5.76, SD = .69; t(65) = 7.24, p < .001. Similarly, the lexical decision task, which contained 120 German and then 120 English items, indicated more automatic lexical access (coefficient of variation) in their L1 (M = .24, SD = .05) than in their L2, M = .26, SD = .05; t(65) = −4.16, p < .001. Finally, the language learning and use questionnaire with 17 items in each language confirmed that the participants were unbalanced bilinguals, dominant in German yet with advanced English proficiency, L1: M = .71, SD = .07, L2: M = .36, SD = .07; t(65) = 31.94, p < .001.
Materials
The experiment comprised 16 neutral-low and 16 negative-high valence-arousal sentences per language condition to manipulate low vs. high emotionality. Following Iacozza et al. (Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017), we created 16 incomplete sentential frames in English into which we inserted either low or high emotionality words as exemplified in (1). These sentences were then translated into German as displayed in (2) by highly proficient bilinguals.
(1) a. The ongoing consequences of global warming change thousands of lives.
b. The traumatic consequences of global warming destroy thousands of lives.
(2) a. Die anhaltenden Folgen der globalen Erwärmung verändern tausende Leben.
b. Die traumatischen Folgen der globalen Erwärmung zerstören tausende Leben.
English and German negative-high arousal words were selected from the Affective Norms for German Sentiment Terms (ANGST, D. S. Schmidtke, Schröder, Jacobs & Conrad, Reference Schmidtke, Schröder, Jacobs and Conrad2014) which provides norms for translation equivalents for the Affects Norms for English Words (ANEW, Bradley & Lang, Reference Bradley and Lang1999) and from (Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017). Neutral-low arousal words were on none of these lists.
We validated the emotional intensity of the sentences in a norming study with a different sample of 25 different L1 German and 26 L1 English university students. They read the neutral-low and negative-high version of the sentences in L1 and rated their valence and arousal on 5-point pictorial scales (SAM, Bradley & Lang, Reference Bradley and Lang1994). The results confirmed the intended difference in valence-induced intensity, F(1, 48) = 118.17, p < .001, as well as an arousal difference, F(1, 48) = 155.90, p < .001), whereas there was no significant language difference or interaction, all F < .75, p > .38. A list of the sentences, individual and summary norms is included in Appendix A. The sentences were also matched in the number of words across the four conditions with a range of M = 11.25–11.50, SD = 2.57–3.05, all F < .05, p > .83. They were framed as authentic advertising slogans either for a supermarket promoting their commitment to sustainability or an NGO promoting their commitment to nature conservation because we expected our student-aged population to show high interest in these topics. To further engage participants in the task, the slogans were presented in combination with advertising context-related, same-size pictures in the background. The pictures were identical in low and high intensity trials and across language conditions to counterbalance for parasympathetic pupil reactions in response to luminance differences (Bradley et al., Reference Bradley, Miccoli, Escrig and Lang2008).
Procedure
Participants were invited in an email newsletter and tested individually in the eye-tracking lab. They were randomly assigned to the German (n = 33) or English (n = 33) condition. The experimenter informed them that the study focused on emotionality in advertising. After providing written informed-consent, participants were seated approximately 70 centimeters in front of a 24”-computer screen surveyed by a remote SMI RED 500 Hertz eye-tracking system. Room lightning was artificial and constant at 590 lux. We positioned a handheld dynamometer on the side of the participant's dominant hand on a small tray at waist level and partly under the table supporting the eye-tracked screen, so that participants could comfortably grab the dynamometer handle yet were not tempted to look at the device. We used a microFET HandGRIP dynamometer from Hoggan Scientific that measures maximum grip force in Newton and grip duration in seconds and transmits data via a blue tooth interface (accuracy ± 0.4 N, operational range 0–880 N).
Grip size of the dynamometer handle was adjusted for each individual, and hand dominance was initially determined in terms of strongest grip force. In a picture-based practice task, participants were further familiarized with the hardware use and procedure. The hardware instructions were in German, while all subsequent tasks were in the language of the experimental condition. In the practice task, participants saw two high and two low arousal pictures sampled from the Open Affective Standardized Image Set (OASIS, Kurdi et al., Reference Kurdi, Lozano and Banaji2017). Each picture was displayed for 5 s, and the experimenter asked “how emotional” it was. Participants learned to squeeze the dynamometer harder and longer to indicate stronger emotional reactions (Creswell et al., Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018) and to proceed to the next screen by fixating the lower right corner of it for 3 s. After each visceral emotion rating, they reported their feelings on a 7-point rating scale with the verbal anchors “unemotional” and “emotional” which are identical cognates in German and English.
The main sentence rating task started with a 9-point eye-tracking calibration that was repeated until position accuracy was ≤ .5 degrees of visual angle. Figure 1 illustrates the procedure of a trial repeated for all 32 sentences. It started with a 1-s fixation inter-trial screen followed by the display of the target sentence in its advertising frame. Participants proceeded to the next screen by fixating its lower right corner for 3 s. It showed the question “How emotional was this slogan?” and the instruction to respond by squeezing the dynamometer. The last screen displayed the same question in combination with a verbal rating scale described above. The participant said the number and the experimenter recorded it. We started with the visceral measures because Creswell et al. (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018) observed stronger correlations between the nonverbal and verbal measures of hunger in this order and to avoid the verbal overshadowing effect they reported.
Figure 1. Procedure of a target trial in the sentence emotion rating task in the English condition.
Analyses
We programed a Python script to clean and aggregate the pupillometry data according to conventional procedures (Kinner et al., Reference Kinner, Kuchinke, Dierolf, Merz, Otto and Wolf2017; Lemercier et al., Reference Lemercier, Guillot, Courcoux, Garrel, Baccino and Schlich2014; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019). The script deleted recordings during blinks and computed a mean diameter from the left and right pupil size for each measurement. To calculate pupil dilation, each participant's mean pupil size within the last 500 ms during the directly preceding fixation screen was subtracted from each pupil diameter value recorded during the display of the target stimulus. Finally, the script down-sampled the dilation values from 500 Hz to 1-s epochs. To account for dwell time outliers, we cut off pupil measures recorded after 14 s per slogan screen excluding 2.10% of the data.
Creswell et al. (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018, Reference Creswell, Sayette, Skrzynski, Wright, Schooler and Sehic2019) analyzed the Area Under the Curve (AUC) as a conjoint dynamometer-generated visceral measure multiplicatively integrating grip force and duration. However, we report separate analyses for maximum grip force and total duration because pretests indicated that participants immediately understood the instruction to squeeze more forcefully yet asked questions about squeezing longer to indicate emotional intensity. Grip force and duration measures were log-transformed to normalize them. To allow for direct comparisons with Creswell et al.'s original studies using the dynamometer, we included AUC-based analyses in Appendix C (they replicated the grip force findings).
To test our replication hypotheses (H1 and H2), we fitted linear mixed-effects regression models (LMMs) using the lmer function from the lme4 package (Bates et al., Reference Bates, Maechler, Bolker, Walker, Bojesen Christensen, Singmann, Dai, Scheipl, Grothendieck, Green and Fox2021) in R Studio (RStudio Team, 2021) for all ratio measures of emotion (pupil dilation, grip force, grip duration). For the ordinal verbal ratings, we used a glmer function from the Poisson family. All models included by-participant and by-item random intercepts and slopes for emotionality (as a within-subjects variable) and random intercepts for items (Barr, Levy, Scheepers & Tily, Reference Barr, Levy, Scheepers and Tily2013). Categorical fixed factors were deviation-coded (-.5 vs. .5), and continuous predictors were centered to achieve comparable effect sizes. In addition to language, emotionality, and their interaction, all models included sex as a control variable because males tend to have stronger grip force (Corrêa et al., Reference Corrêa, Donato, Lima, Pereira, Uygur and Freitas2020). The pupil dilation models further entailed epoch as a predictor since pupil reactions evolve over time (Lemercier et al., Reference Lemercier, Guillot, Courcoux, Garrel, Baccino and Schlich2014). Further interactions were included if they improved model fit (which they did not). Estimates with |t| ≥ 1.96 fall within the 95% confidence interval and are considered significant, which was confirmed by p-values estimated with lmerTest (Kuznetsova, Brockhoff & Christensen, Reference Kuznetsova, Brockhoff and Christensen2017). To test our research hypothesis (H3), we used likelihood ratio tests (Pinheiro & Bates, Reference Pinheiro and Bates2009) analyzing if grip force, grip duration, and verbal ratings improved the model fit relative to a null model predicting pupil dilation from epochs and sex alone in three separate models with the same random-effect structure as described above.
3.2. Results and discussion
Pupil dilation
The LMM predicting pupil dilation (Table 1) confirmed a significant main effect of language, in that pupil dilation in millimeter was larger in L1 (M = .46, SD = .24) than in L2 (M = .38, SD = .23) and a significant main effect of emotionality with stronger dilation for high-emotionality slogans (M = .51, SD = .23), compared to low ones (M = .33, SD = .21). Importantly, as depicted in Figure 2, first panel, a significant interaction between language and emotionality qualified the main effects, such that the language difference was significant for high, b = −.124, SE = .024, t = −5.16, but not for low-emotionality slogans, b = −.007, SE = .028, t = −.24. Consistent with the physiology of pupil reactions, dilation increased over time, and women and men reacted similarly.
Figure 2. Covariate adjusted interaction plots for language × emotionality with means and 95%-CIs for the four measures of emotions induced by the sentence-reading task.
Table 1. Mixed-effects models predicting reactions in the sentence-reading task.
Note. Absolute t-values > 1.96 are significant (in bold). Continuous predictors were standardized. (-) = variable not relevant for the model.
Grip force
Grip force responses across the 32 slogans were highly consistent with Cronbach's α = .99 in both languages. The LMM (Table 1) found a main effect of language with stronger maximum force in L1 (M = 88.44, SD = 51.45) than in L2, M = 78.69, SD = 44.72, and a main effect of emotionality with substantially stronger force for high (M = 94.60, SD = 50.49) than low (M = 72.53, SD = 43.61) intensity slogans. Notably, there was a significant language-emotionality interaction. As the second panel in Figure 2 suggests – in parallel to the pupil reactions – the gap between L1 and L2 was larger for high-emotionality slogans, b = −.052, SE = .051, t = −1.02, compared to low ones, b = .015, SE = .058, t = .26. Finally, men's grip force (M = 100.34, SD = 54.51) was significantly stronger compared to women's, M = 75.74, SD = 43.17.
Grip duration
The measure of grip duration was internally consistent across slogans with Cronbach's α = .96 in L1 and .98 in L2. In the LMM (Table 1), language did not account for a significant share of variance, L1: M = 1.55, SD = 1.11, L2: M = 1.91, SD = 1.65, and it did not interact with emotionality (see Figure 2, third panel). There was a significant main effect of emotionality indicating that participants squeezed the dynamometer longer after high- (M = 1.95, SD = 1.58) relative to low-emotionality (M = 1.51, SD = 1.19) slogans. The effect of sex approached significance.
Verbal rating
The verbal ratings of how (un-)emotional participants felt after reading each slogan were very consistent with Cronbach's α = .96 in L1 and .93 in L2. The Poisson model (Table 1) yielded no significant main or interaction effect of language (see Figure 2, fourth panel) since the ratings were similar in L1 (M = 3.71, SD = 1.55) and L2 (M = 3.95, SD = 1.48). High-emotionality slogans received significantly higher ratings (M = 4.55, SD = 1.36) than low ones, M = 3.12, SD = 1.32, while none of the other predictors was significant.
Comparison of measures
Grip force explained pupil dilation beyond the null model, χ2(1) = 26.94, p < .001, such that larger pupil dilation was associated with stronger grip force, b = .018, SE = .003, t = 5.20. Grip duration also improved model fit, χ2(1) = 17.07, p < .001. However, longer grip duration was associated with weaker pupil dilation, b = −.012, SE = .003, t = −4.14. Finally, the inclusion of verbal ratings did not improve model fit, χ2(1) = .49, p =.784; b = −.002, SE = .003, t = −.67.
As the negative relationship between pupil dilation and grip duration was unexpected, and participants repeatedly asked the experimenters about the meaning of “squeezing longer”, we conducted additional explorative analyses. Grip duration correlated significantly with the mean time participants dwelled on the advertising slogans, r(66) = .340, p = .005, while none of the other three emotion measures showed such a correlation, all r < |.15|, p > .25. Participants also tended to dwell slightly longer on L2 slogans, M = 4.29, SD = .59 vs. M = 3.99, SD = 0.63; t(65) = 2.00, p = .05. Accordingly, an extended LMM found that dwell time significantly predicted grip duration (b = .067, SE = .025, t = 2.66) and interacted with language, b = .104, SE = .050, t = 2.09. In LMMs predicting pupil dilation, grip force, and verbal ratings, dwell time was irrelevant. We therefore assume that participants reported a subjective mix of the intensity of their emotional reaction and the perceived time they spent reading a slogan in the duration of squeezing the dynamometer.
Interim discussion
In sum, the sentence rating experiment successfully replicated the pupillometry results from Iacozza et al. (Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017) with weaker L2 emotions for high emotionality stimuli, yet no language differences in verbal ratings. In addition to the language-emotionality interaction, our sample and materials also showed a main effect of language on pupil dilation, so that our first and second hypothesis were confirmed. As the visual comparison of the four interaction plots in Figure 2 and the result pattern in the LMMs in Table 1 suggest, grip force mirrored the main and interaction effects observed for pupil dilation. Model comparisons showed that grip force explained pupil reactions well. However, the verbal ratings did not correspond with pupil dilation. These findings supported our third hypothesis. The result pattern for grip duration was more similar to verbal ratings than to pupil dilation, and participants may also have confused reading time and emotionality.
4. Study 2: Narrative video-induced emotions
Study 2 replicated parts of the German–English pupillometry experiment by Thoma and Baum (Reference Thoma and Baum2019) inducing emotions in bilinguals with authentic narrative video commercials. We extended the task by showing participants several videos of low and high emotionality (instead of a neutral baseline and one high emotionality video) and by a combination of visceral and verbal self-report ratings of emotion as in Study 1.
4.1. Method
Participants and materials
Participants were the same 66 as in Study 1. The present experiment included two authentic low- and two high-emotionality video commercials for which a German and English language version was available or created. We compiled a larger pool of videos which convey their message primarily through audio narration and do not feature talking actors. Their potential emotionality was discussed in a focus group consisting of two German and two English L1 speakers. We selected two low-high emotionality pairs that were equivocally classified and of comparable length. If necessary, we edited the videos in length and removed sequences showing written language other than the brand name. We resampled the audio tracks of the high-emotionality videos, such that the same balanced bilingual speaker, who had a sonorant mature male or a female child voice, narrated both language versions. In the low-emotionality videos, the narrator voices were comparable. The visual tracks of the videos were identical across language conditions. We programed a Python software to estimate the mean perceived relative luminance per video second according to the luminous efficiency function (Poynton, Reference Poynton2012, Eq. 24.1) from red, green and blue tristimulus values of the individual images within this second.
In detail, we sampled the high-emotionality 58-s video Hochzeitstag (“Wedding Day”, Minghella, Reference Minghella2006) used and resampled by Thoma and Baum (Reference Thoma and Baum2019). It features an elderly lady on a cemetery who receives flowers from a delivery service her late husband had pre-ordered. Second, we edited a 42-s low emotionality video (“Letterbox Flowers”, Bloom & Wild, 2019), showing a variety of flowers and recommending their delivery. Third, we used a 170-s high-emotionality video (“My father is a liar”, MetLife, 2015) telling the story of an unemployed single father doing everything for his child daughter. Fourth, we selected a 197-s low-emotionality corporate video (Endress+Hauser, 2019) describing the spirit of a Swiss engineering company.
The videos were further normed for valence and arousal in two unrelated studies, where they served as fillers (see Appendix B for values). Thirty-four L1 English and 30 L1 German speakers rated the two low or the two high emotionality videos. Their ratings confirmed that high emotionality stimuli were more negative (F(1, 63) = 54.75, p < .001) and more arousing (F(1, 63) = 313.44, p < .001), while there was no significant language difference or interaction, all F < 1.85, p > .17.
Procedure and analyses
The procedure was as in Study 1, with the advertising slogans in the sentence rating task being replaced with the four video stimuli presented in random order in both language conditions. After a video had played, the task proceeded automatically to the screen presenting the visceral rating instruction (compare Figure 1).
Data preparation and analyses also followed the rationales of Study 1. Since the video stimuli differed in emotionality and luminance, the LMMs predicting pupil dilation additionally included relative luminance per epoch to control for the latter.
4.2. Results and discussion
Pupil dilation
As summarized in Table 2, the LMM revealed no main effect of language with only slightly stronger pupil dilation in L1, M = .32, SD = .48, compared to L2, M = .27, SD = .48. The model confirmed a very strong main effect of emotionality with hardly any reaction to low emotionality videos, M = .04, SD = .41, yet considerable pupil dilation during high-emotionality videos, M = .57, SD = .39. This main effect was qualified by a significant interaction with language, such that the difference between low vs. high emotionality was significantly larger in L1 (b = .446, SE = .097, t = 4.59) than in L2, b = .257, SE = .102, t = 2.53 (see Figure 3, first panel). A different way to interpret the two-way interaction is to say that, regarding language-dependent emotions, pupil dilation was weaker in L2 during listening to high-emotionality video narratives, b = −.159, SE = .069, t = −2.31, while language made no significant difference during low-emotionality videos, b = .032, SE = .059, t = .54. As expected, the model revealed a significant effect of epoch with increasing pupil dilation over time and a massive constriction of pupil diameter in response to higher luminance. Finally, women reacted slightly more intensely (M = .31, SD = 0.50) than men, M = .26, SD = .44.
Figure 3. Covariate-adjusted interaction plots for language × emotionality with means and 95%-CIs for the four measures of emotion in the video task.
Table 2. Mixed-effects models predicting reactions in the video task.
Note. Absolute t-values > 1.96 are significant (in bold). Continuous predictors were standardized. (-) = variable not relevant for
Grip force
Even though the task included only four video stimuli, the reliability of grip force was good with Cronbach's α = .90 in L1 and .87 in L2. Table 2 reports no significant main effect of language effect despite descriptively stronger force in L1 (M = 110.07, SD = 67.95) than in L2, M = 96.21, SD = 54.99. The LMM confirmed a main effect of emotionality with clearly stronger grip force in response to high (M = 130.42, SD = 61.18) than low (M = 75.86, SD = 49.96) emotionality videos and also, a significant language-emotionality interaction. Inspection of this interaction (see Figure 3, second panel) revealed that the difference between low and high emotionality was more pronounced in L1 (b = .338, SE = .033, t = 10.35) than in L2, b = .205, SE = .036, t = 5.76. As physiognomically expected, men squeezed the dynamometer significantly harder (M = 132.46, SD = 75.69) than women, M = 89.46, SD = 49.14.
Grip duration
Participants squeezed the dynamometer consistently long across the video stimuli with Cronbach's α = .70 in L1 and .86 in L2. Grip duration did not differ significantly between the language conditions (Table 2). Descriptively, L1 participants squeezed shorter (M = 2.01, SD = 1.30) than the L2 group, M = 2.48, SD = 2.05. The effect of emotionality was significant, such that participants squeezed the dynamometer longer after high-emotionality (M = 2.95, SD = 1.74) than low-emotionality (M = 1.54, SD = 1.42) videos. Language and emotionality did not interact (see Figure 3, third panel). The effect of sex was negligible.
Verbal rating
The reliability of the verbal emotion ratings was acceptable with Cronbach's α = .77 in L1 and .71 in L2. The Poisson model (Table 2) found no significant main or interaction effect of language (see Figure 3, fourth panel) as the ratings were similar in L1 (M = 4.54, SD = 2.01) and L2, M = 4.70, SD = 1.89. High-emotionality videos were rated significantly more emotional (M = 4.72, SD = 1.94) than low-emotionality ones, M = 4.39, SD = 1.95. Moreover, men reported weaker feelings (M = 4.39, SD = 1.95) than women, M = 4.72, SD = 1.94.
Comparison of measures
In parallel to Study 1, we first computed a null model including epoch, relative luminance, and sex as fixed predictors of pupil dilation and, then, used likelihood ratio tests to analyze the contribution of visceral and verbal ratings. Grip force improved model fit significantly beyond the null model, χ2(1) = 24.43, p < .001, based on a positive association between pupil dilation and force, b = .024, SE = .005, t = 5.08. In a separate model, grip duration also improved model fit, χ2(1) = 6.61, p < .001, yet longer grip duration was associated negatively with pupil dilation, b = −.012, SE = .004, t = −2.82. Finally, a model with verbal ratings was not significantly better than the null model, χ2(1) = 1.03, p =.311; b = .006, SE = .006, t = 1.01.
Interim discussion
Study 2 replicated the reduced pupil dilation effect in L2 relative to L1 in response to listening to authentic narratives in video commercials for high-emotionality videos originally observed by Thoma and Baum (Reference Thoma and Baum2019). Consistent with prior research (García-Palacios et al., Reference García-Palacios, Costa, Castilla, Del Río, Casaponsa and Duñabeitia2018; Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Toivo & Scheepers, Reference Toivo and Scheepers2019), pupil dilation clearly responded to the emotional intensity of the stimuli, whereas language had no significant direct influence but qualified the emotionality effect, such that it was more pronounced in L1 than L2. Therefore, Study 2 confirmed the replication hypotheses H1 and H2. With respect to our research hypothesis, H3, visceral ratings via grip force indeed mirrored the result pattern observed for pupil dilation more closely and predicted pupil dilation in an LMM more accurately than verbal ratings. As in Study 1, there was an unexpected negative relationship between pupil dilation and grip duration.
5. Discussion
The present study aimed at validating visceral measures obtained from squeezing a handheld dynamometer for the assessment of bilingual feelings. Therefore, we replicated and extended two pupillometry experiments (Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019) investigating bilinguals’ language-dependent reactions induced by reading sentences (Study 1) and listening to narrative video commercials (Study 2) of low and high emotionality in L1 or L2. In addition to pupil dilation as an index of automatic emotional reactions of the sympathetic nervous system, we obtained explicit visceral and verbal emotion ratings for each stimulus. The most important replication result in both studies was that – based on a language-emotionality interaction in pupil dilation – bilinguals were more sensitive to stimulus emotionality in their L1 than L2. In other words, the difference in emotional reaction between neutral low-arousal vs. negative high-arousal sentences and narratives was larger in L1. This interaction has been shown with pupillometry for conjoint valence and arousal-induced emotional intensity (García-Palacios et al., Reference García-Palacios, Costa, Castilla, Del Río, Casaponsa and Duñabeitia2018; Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Thoma & Baum, Reference Thoma and Baum2019) and arousal (Toivo & Scheepers, Reference Toivo and Scheepers2019), as well as for valence in studies measuring SCR (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, Reference Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçeği-Dinn2009) and ERP (Jończyk et al., Reference Jończyk, Boutonnet, Musiał, Hoemann and Thierry2016; Wu & Thierry, Reference Wu and Thierry2012). Also consistent with some prior research (Harris et al., Reference Harris, Ayçiçeği-Dinn and Gleason2003; Iacozza et al., Reference Iacozza, Costa and Duñabeitia2017; Jończyk et al., Reference Jończyk, Boutonnet, Musiał, Hoemann and Thierry2016), verbal ratings differed with stimulus emotionality in the sense of a manipulation check, but they did not show a language or interaction effect and were uncorrelated with pupil dilation. Maximum grip force, however, predicted pupil dilation well and, most importantly, reproduced the language-emotionality interaction observed in the pupillometry data.
The present research has important methodological and theoretical implications but also limitations that may be addressed in future research. At a practical level, we suggest that for emotion research, dynamometer responses provide an economical, easy-to-use nonverbal measurement alternative to pupillometry and electrodermal activity in terms of equipment and data complexity. The methodology further allows researchers to measure attentional – rather than automatic and involuntary – responses without having to choose a language for the reporting. Visceral ratings could possibly be used in domains of bilingualism research beyond emotion, where the dependent variable is at risk of being unknowingly influenced by the choice of the response language such as attitudes, preferences, and even the acceptability of grammatical structures. Notwithstanding, our evidence is limited because we did not include other than verbal symbolic rating scales, e.g., with iconic anchors or color points instead of numbers (Langhe et al., Reference Langhe, Puntoni, Fernandes and van Osselaer2011) in the validation. To maximize the power to confirm our replication hypotheses (H1 and H2) that were the prerequisite to test our research hypothesis (H3), we limited stimulus emotionality to neutral-low vs. negative-high arousal items. In line with extant research (e.g., Harris et al., Reference Harris, Ayçiçeği-Dinn and Gleason2003; Wu & Thierry, Reference Wu and Thierry2012), we expect similar but weaker emotionality and language effects for positively valenced sentences and narratives. However, how these will be reflected in pupillary, dynamometer, and verbal responses remains to be tested.
In terms of theory development, it is central to further explore in how far the present findings represent measurement or conceptual differences. On the one hand, we could take up Creswell et al.'s (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018, Reference Creswell, Sayette, Skrzynski, Wright, Schooler and Sehic2019) verbal-overshadowing argument that visceral states or “gut feelings” such as hunger and urge to smoke are distorted by verbal ratings and can, thus, be assessed more validly with visceral dynamometer responses. If researchers are interested in pre-verbal or even pre-cognitive affectual states, then measuring them via verbal responses may indeed bias what they intend to measure, so that visceral responses would allow for more valid conclusions about basic affectual reactions. On the other hand, we could argue that the discrepancies between pupil responses and verbal ratings occurred not so much because translating stimulus-evoked emotionality into a numerical scale with verbal anchors (in our case same-orthography German and English cognate words) was a difficult task. Instead, the verbal rating may have triggered additional thinking and, in turn, more deliberate decision-making (Dijksterhuis, Reference Dijksterhuis2004) and stronger emotion regulation (Torre & Lieberman, Reference Torre and Lieberman2018) before participants reported the intensity of their current feelings. Deliberate decisions can but need not correspond with intuition, in particular, if the intuition is weak (Dhar & Gorlin, Reference Dhar and Gorlin2013). The intuitive pupillary reaction to linguistic emotional stimuli could therefore reflect a different stage of emotion processing, compared to the deliberate verbal rating behavior. This interpretation aligns with bilingual emotion research claiming that bilinguals’ weaker emotions in L2 are highly automatic reactions that depend on the time course of emotion processing and may vanish in later, more intense and deliberate stages of emotion processing (Jończyk et al., Reference Jończyk, Boutonnet, Musiał, Hoemann and Thierry2016; Opitz & Degner, Reference Opitz and Degner2012; Thoma, Reference Thoma2021). On this note, we could tentatively order the four emotion measures used in Studies 1 and 2 on a continuum from intuitive to deliberate starting with pupil dilation followed by grip force, grip duration and verbal ratings (see Figures 2 and 3). Whereas maximum grip force represented an impulsive reflex close to the automatic pupil responses, grip duration responses were naturally slower, more controlled and paralleled those of deliberate verbal responses. Based on Creswell et al. (Reference Creswell, Sayette, Schooler, Wright and Pacilio2018, Reference Creswell, Sayette, Skrzynski, Wright, Schooler and Sehic2019), we did not expect deviations between grip force and duration, but there was also evidence that participants associated grip duration with stimulus duration, which cannot happen when reporting on hungriness or an urge. We could not fully resolve the issue with grip duration at the instructional level. However, to test the proposed continuum, it would be interesting to compare all four measures when bilinguals experience valence and arousal (core affect) in contrast to specific emotions – in particular, as languages may be actively and differentially involved in constructing specific emotions (Barrett, Reference Barrett2006; Gendron et al., Reference Gendron, Lindquist, Barsalou and Barrett2012).
Taken together, the present findings warrant two different conclusions that await further testing. First, we could argue that we compared explicit visceral and verbal ratings of language-dependent emotional experiences by bilinguals and validated them against implicit prior emotional reactions reflected in pupil dilation. Then, our findings provide initial evidence for the superior validity of grip force as an explicit yet nonverbal, visceral self-report measure of bilingual feelings. Second, and maybe even more interestingly, the findings could suggest that grip force captures bilinguals’ feelings at an early, relatively intuitive stage of emotion processing and reporting. This stage still closely resembles the language-dependent differences of automatic physiological emotional reactions that may change gradually with increasing deliberation, i.e., verbalization, and the choice of the language of reporting.
Data availability statement
Non-copyrighted experimental stimuli, most data files and the key R core are available at: https://osf.io/zhv4n/
Supplementary Material
For supplementary material accompanying this paper, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000396
Open access
