The ability to understand fractions is key to establishing a solid foundation in mathematics, yet children and adults struggle to comprehend them. Previous studies have suggested that these struggles emerge because people fail to process fraction magnitude holistically on the mental number line (MNL), focusing instead on fraction components. Subsequent studies have produced evidence for default holistic processing but examined only magnitude processing, not spatial representations. We explored the spatial representations of fractions on the MNL in a series of three experiments. Experiment 1 replicated Bonato et al.; 30 naïve undergraduates compared unit fractions (1/1-1/9) to 1/5, resulting in a reverse SNARC (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect. Experiment 2 countered potential strategic biases induced by the limited set of fractions used by Bonato et al. by expanding the stimulus set to include all irreducible, single-digit proper fractions and asked participants to compare them against 1/2. We observed a classic SNARC effect, completely reversing the pattern from Experiment 1. Together, Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that stimulus properties dramatically impact spatial representations of fractions. In Experiment 3, we demonstrated within-subjects reliability of the SNARC effect across both a fractions and whole number comparison task. Our results suggest that adults can indeed process fraction magnitudes holistically, and that their spatial representations occur on a consistent MNL for both whole numbers and fractions.
AlibaliM. W.SidneyP. G. (2015). Variability in the natural number bias: Who, when, how, and why. Learning and Instruction, 37, 56–61. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.01.003
2.
BonatoM.FabbriS.UmiltàC.ZorziM. (2007). The mental representation of numerical fractions: Real or integer?Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1410–1419. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1410
3.
BoothJ. L.NewtonK. J. (2012). Fractions: Could they really be the gatekeeper’s doorman?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.07.001
BynnerJ.ParsonsS. (2006). New light on literacy and numeracy: Results of the literacy and numeracy assessment in the age 34 follow-up of the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). London, England: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
6.
CarpenterT. P.CorbittM. K.KepnerH.LindquistM. M.ReyR. (1981). Results from the Second Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
7.
CiporaK.NuerkH. (2013). Is the SNARC effect related to the level of mathematics? No systematic relationship observed despite more power, more repetitions, and more direct assessment of arithmetic skill. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1974–1991. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.772215
8.
CrossC. T.WoodsT. A.SchweingruberH. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12519
9.
DehaeneS.BossiniS.GirauxP. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
10.
DehaeneS.DupouxE.MehlerJ. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 16, 626–641. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.626
11.
DeWolfM.GroundsM. A.BassokM.HolyoakK. J. (2014). Magnitude comparison with different types of rational numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 71–82. doi:10.1037/a0032916
12.
DeWolfM.VosniadouS. (2015). The representation of fraction magnitudes and the whole number bias reconsidered. Learning and Instruction, 37, 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.002
13.
DiedenhofenB.MuschJ. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121945. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121945
14.
DomahsF.MoellerK.HuberS.WillmesK.NuerkH. C. (2010). Embodied numerosity: Implicit hand-based representations influence symbolic number processing across cultures. Cognition, 116, 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.007
15.
FiasW.BrysbaertM.GeypensF.D’YdewalleG. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2, 95–110. doi:10.1080/135467996387552
GeversW.VergutsT.ReynvoetB.CaessensB.FiasW. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32, 32–44. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.32
18.
GibsonL. C.MaurerD. (2016). Development of SNARC and distance effects and their relation to mathematical and visuospatial abilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2016.05.009
19.
GöbelS. M.ShakiS.FischerM. H. (2011). The cultural number line : A review of cultural and linguistic influences on the development of number processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 543–565. doi:10.1177/0022022111406251
20.
HesseP. N.FiehlerK.BremmerF. (2016). SNARC effect in different effectors. Perception, 45, 180–195. doi:10.1177/0301006615614453
21.
HoffmannD.MussolinC.MartinR.SchiltzC. (2014). The impact of mathematical proficiency on the number-space association. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85048. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085048
22.
HolyoakK. J. (1978). Comparative judgments with numerical reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 203–243. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(78)90014-2
23.
HubbardE. M.PiazzaM.PinelP.DehaeneS. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 435–448. doi:10.1038/nrn1684
24.
IschebeckA.SchockeM.DelazerM. (2009). The processing and representation of fractions within the brain. An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 47, 403–413. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.041
25.
KallaiA. Y.TzelgovJ. (2009). A generalized fraction: An entity smaller than one on the mental number line. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1845–1864. doi:10.1037/a0016892
26.
LewisM. R.MatthewsP. G.HubbardE. M. (2015). Neurocognitive architectures and the nonsymbolic foundations of fractions understanding. In BerchD. B.GearyD. C.KoepkeK. M. (Eds.), Development of mathematical cognition: Neural substrates and genetic influences (pp. 141–164). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
27.
LindemannO.AlipourA.FischerM. H. (2011). Finger counting habits in Middle Eastern and Western Individuals: An online survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 566–578. doi:10.1177/0022022111406254
28.
LiuC.XinZ.LinC.ThompsonC. (2013). Children’s mental representation when comparing fractions with common numerators. Educational Psychology, 33, 175–191. doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.730324
29.
MeertG.GrégoireJ.NoëlM.-P. (2009). Rational numbers: Componential versus holistic representation of fractions in a magnitude comparison task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1598–1616. doi:10.1080/17470210802511162
30.
MeertG.GrégoireJ.NoëlM.-P. (2010). Comparing 5/7 and 2/9: Adults can do it by accessing the magnitude of the whole fractions. Acta Psychologica, 135, 284–292. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.014
MoyerR. S.LandauerT. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. doi:10.1038/2151519a0
33.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Foundations, 37, 595–601. doi:10.3102/0013189X08329195
34.
NiY.ZhouY.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27–52. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3
35.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
36.
PashlerH.HarrisC. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536. doi:10.1177/1745691612463401
37.
PfisterR.SchwarzK.CarsonR.JancyzkM. (2013). Easy methods for extracting individual regression slopes: Comparing SPSS, R, and Excel. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9, 72–78. Retrieved from http://www.tqmp.org/Content/vol09-2/p072/p072.pdf
38.
ProctorR. W.ChoY. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416
39.
SchneiderM.SieglerR. S. (2010). Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1227–1238. doi:10.1037/a0018170
40.
ShakiS.FischerM. H.PetrusicW. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 328–331. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.328
41.
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM., . . . ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. doi:10.1177/0956797612440101
42.
SieglerR. S.FazioL. K.BaileyD. H.ZhouX. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 13–19. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.004
43.
SieglerR. S.RamaniG. B. (2009). Playing linear number board games – But not circular ones: Improves low-income preschoolers’ numerical understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 545–560. doi:10.1037/a0014239
44.
ThompsonC. A.SieglerR. S. (2010). Linear numerical-magnitude representations aid children’s memory for numbers. Psychological Science, 21, 1274–1281. doi:10.1177/0956797610378309
45.
van DijckJ. P.FiasW. (2011). A working memory account for spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 119, 114–119. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.013
46.
ViarougeA.HubbardE. M.McCandlissB. D. (2014). The cognitive mechanisms of the SNARC effect: An individual differences approach. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95756. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095756
47.
WhyteJ. C.BullR. (2008). Number games, magnitude representation, and basic number skills in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 588–596. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.588
48.
WoodG.WillmesK.NuerkH.-C.FischerM. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: A meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly, 4, 489–525. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187
49.
ZebianS. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the REVERSE SNARC effect in English and Arabic Monoliterates, Biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 165–190. doi:10.1163/1568537054068660
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
