Abstract
112 undergraduates separately judged the size of the numbers 9 then 221 or 221 then 9 on a 10-point scale or on a continuous line that were both anchored only at the extremes by “very, very small” and “very, very large.” Replicating the 1999 Birnbaum study, 9 was given a higher rating than 221 when the numbers were judged first by different people on the numerical scale. However, 9 was given a similar or smaller rating than 221 in the other conditions. The results are discussed in terms of context effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
