The question of how to distinguish between dialects and languages has plagued linguists for decades. The present investigation uses behavioral observations to objectively distinguish between bilingual and bidialectal translation effects. Using the picture-word interference paradigm, Italian - Neapolitan (Exp 1) bidialectal participants named pictures while ignoring semantically identical, related, or unrelated distractor words presented in their two linguistic varieties. Consistent with prior investigations of dialectal lexical selection studies, we observed translation equivalent interference between dialectal varieties that were mutually non-intelligible and in participants who were active, proficient speakers of both varieties. Experiment 2 assessed the distractor effects in Italian-English bilingual speakers and did not observe similar translation equivalent inference effects. The results suggest that mutual intelligibility and high speaker proficiency are not necessary and sufficient conditions for establishing independent lexical systems.

There are many factors that can influence a voter's decision in the ballot booth but not all of them are policy related. One non-policy factor that may influence voters is the tendency to choose options that attract attention. Here, we investigate this possibility in two proof-of-concept laboratory studies with people choosing between proposed laws. We find that people are slower to vote when their party is split over an issue, and that they tend to vote for laws that they look at more. Moreover, this gaze effect is stronger for more important issues. We also find that we can increase the probability that someone will vote for one of two laws by getting them to look at that option first. Our work harnesses the power of sequential sampling models to explain the relationship between gaze and vote choice. We find support for a goal-based model where overt attention amplifies information supporting a particular law. This model explains why gaze has a stronger effect on choice for more important issues. Our findings indicate that some voting decisions are not predetermined and instead rely on an on-the-spot evaluation. As a result, these decisions can be swayed by attentional manipulations. Thus, visual attention may serve as a unifying framework for understanding different biases that occur in the voting booth, such as ballot-order and candidate-name-familiarity effects.

Moore's Paradox-e.g., "It's raining but I don't think it's raining"-is widely considered infelicitous despite being logically consistent. In this paper, we extend Moore's Paradox to moral discourse and test whether moral statements like "Murder is wrong but I don't disapprove of it" elicit similar intuitions. Rooted in moral expressivism, the Parity Thesis predicts that moral assertions express non-cognitive attitudes (e.g., approval/disapproval) in a manner analogous to how descriptive statements express beliefs. In a pre-registered study with 1200 participants, we empirically test this thesis using a mixed design that manipulates moral term type (thick vs thin), evaluative polarity (positive vs negative), perspective (first vs third person), and attitude (belief vs disapproval). The results of our main study and one qualitative follow-up study suggest that while moral statements resemble Moorean Paradoxes in important ways, participants find it largely acceptable to call an action wrong without disapproving of it. As the infelicity of such statements is a core ingredient of Moorean Paradoxes and, as we suggest, the Parity Thesis, we conclude that moral language does not express approval and disapproval like declarative language expresses beliefs.