Abstract
People indicate the physical size or the parity status of small numbers faster by a left-hand key and those of larger numbers by a right-hand key. Because magnitude information is not required for successful performance in these tasks, the presence of a number-space association (the SNARC effect) has been taken to indicate the automatic activation of numerical magnitude in all tasks with numerals. In order to test this account, in a series of five experiments, we derived two consensual markers of automatic activation of irrelevant numerical magnitude, the size congruity effect (for judgments of physical size), and the Garner effect (for judgments of parity). Both markers were found independent of the SNARC effect. Consequently, we question the traditional explanation of the SNARC effect and offer an alternative account in terms of a highly overlearned stimulus-response loop.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Algom, D., Dekel, A., & Pansky, A. (1996). The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited. Memory & Cognition, 24, 557–572.
Bächtold, D., Baumuller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731–735.
Banks, W. P., Fujii, M., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1976). Semantic congruity effects in comparative judgments of magnitudes of digits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 435–447.
Brysbaert, M. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 434–452.
Choplin, J. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). A memory-based account of automatic numerosity processing. Memory & Cognition, 33, 17–28.
Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 626–641.
Fias, W. (2001). Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Psychological Research, 65, 250–259.
Fias, W., Brysbaert, M., Geypens, F., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2, 95–110.
Fischer, M. H. (2001). Number processing induces spatial performance biases. Neurology, 57, 822–826.
Fischer, M. H. (2003). Spatial representation in number processing: Evidence from a pointing task. Visual Cognition, 10, 493–508.
Fischer, M. H. (2006). The future for SNARC could be stark. Cortex, 42, 1066–1068.
Fitousi, D., & Algom, D. (2006). Size congruity effects with two-digit numbers: Expanding the number line? Memory & Cognition, 34, 445–457.
Ganel, T., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2008). Visual coding of action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology, 18, R559-R601.
Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature, 426, 664–667.
Ganel, T., & Goshen-Gottstein, Y. (2002). Perceptual integrality of sex and identity of faces: Further evidence for the single-route hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 854–867.
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, B87-B95.
Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2004). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organised: Evidence from days of the week. Cortex, 40, 171–172.
Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 32–44.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673.
Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition, 33, 681–695.
Lammertyn, J., Fias, W., & Lauwereyns, J. (2002). Semantic influences of feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. Cortex, 38, 878–882.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 149–157.
Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471.
Melara, R. D., & Mounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21, 627–645.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. London: Oxford University Press.
Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). The time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520.
Otten, L. J., Sudevan, P., Logan, G. D., & Coles, M. G. H. (1996). Magnitude versus parity in numerical judgments: Event-related brain potentials implicate response conflict as the source of interference. Acta Psychologica, 94, 21–40.
Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (1999). Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 39–58.
Pansky, A., & Algom, D. (2002). Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: Attention preempts automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 259–274.
Schwarz, W., & Keus, I. M., (2004). Moving the eyes along the mental number line: Comparing SNARC effects with saccadic and manual responses. Memory & Cognition, 66, 651–664.
Schweinberger, S. R., & Soukup, G. R. (1998). Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion, and facial speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1748–1765.
Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 89–103.
Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., & Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 166–179.
Wood, G., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes, K. (2006). Crossed hands and the SNARC effect: A failure to replicate Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux (1993). Cortex, 42, 1069–1079.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Note—Accepted by the previous editorial team, when Thomas H. Carr was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fitousi, D., Shaki, S. & Algom, D. The role of parity, physical size, and magnitude in numerical cognition: The SNARC effect revisited. Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 143–155 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.1.143
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.1.143