Rolling off the Tongue into the Top-of-the-Head: Explaining Language Effects on Public Opinion

Growing evidence shows that mass opinion varies by interview language, yet modest theory exists to explain this result. I propose a framework where language impacts survey response by making some political concepts more mentally accessible. I claim that concepts vary by how associated they are with certain languages, which means people are more likely to acquire a construct when it is tied to the tongue one speaks. Hence, recalling concepts from memory should be easier when the language a construct is linked to matches the tongue one interviews in, thereby intensifying people’s opinions. I test my theory by manipulating the interview language in two U.S. surveys of English/Spanish bilingual Latino adults. I generally find that language influences the accessibility of concepts. For example, subjects report higher opinion levels for concepts that are tied more to their interview language, such as American identity among English interviewees. Subjects who interview in English are also less likely to refuse completing items measuring knowledge about U.S. politics, and more likely to answer them quickly. Items reflecting constructs that are highly labile (e.g. anti-Obama affect) or very crystallized (e.g., partisanship) do not display these patterns. I then rule out that language effects are mostly mediated by a heightened sense of anxiety, anger, pride or efficacy that emerges when bilingual subjects interview in one of their languages.     

Psychotropic Medications for Youth in Child Welfare: Developing and Pilot-Testing A Field Guide for Team Decision-Making

High rates of children involved with the child welfare system are prescribed psychotropics. In response, federal legislation has mandated state child welfare agencies to develop policies to improve the coordination and oversight around the use of psychotropics. This project aimed to support such policies by developing and pilot-testing a field guide for team discussions and decision-making related to the use of psychotropics among youth in child welfare. We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework to engage a team of local stakeholders, including former youth in foster care and parents, in the research. We developed a field guide to facilitate team discussions and decisions around the individual needs and preferences of youth and families, and we pilot-tested the field guide with child welfare staff, parents, and care team members in seven team meetings. Parents and care team members, in particular, highly valued the guide and found it useful to increase knowledge and improve practices such as side effect monitoring and information sharing. Child welfare responses were more mixed, and some reported feeling burdened by the additional tasks. More work is needed to integrate the guide into routine child welfare practice and reduce burden on staff.