Bilinguals outperform monolinguals in tasks measuring executive functions; particularly, in tasks that measure inhibition and flexible behavior (e.g., task-switching), all of which require increased top-down control. One interpretation of this advantage in performance is that bilinguals may approach tasks in a top-down (goal-driven) manner, and given improved performance in certain tasks, top-down control is typically viewed as beneficial. Only one study has investigated the possibility that increased top-down control may result in a cost in terms of the influence on bottom-up (automatic, non-goal-driven) processing. To further explore the potential cost of top-down control on bottom-up processing, this experiment investigated patterns of semantic priming in 50 monolinguals and 50 early bilinguals across three experiments in which the amount of top-down control required varied systematically. If bottom-up processes are impaired as a function of top-down control strategies, we hypothesized that bilingual individuals, who recruit more top-down processes, will exhibit fewer baseline semantic priming effects, and that all participants will exhibit less semantic priming as the top-down requirements of the tasks increase. The lexical decision task was used in isolation to measure baseline differences in automatic, semantic priming between monolinguals and bilinguals. An additional, task-switching paradigm, in which participants either performed a lexical decision task or decided whether the first letter of a word was between A-L or M-Z was created to engender a more top-down approach. Finally, a dual task in which participants identified changes in auditory tones while making lexical decisions, was used to attempt to decrease any top-down influence on the lexical decision task. Preliminary analysis of the data suggests that priming did not change as a function of task or language group. I will discuss the implications of this research for understanding individual differences in executive functioning.