Abstract
The size congruity effect is the interesting result that comparisons of the sizes of the physical formats in which numerals appear are affected by the numerical magnitudes of the respective numerals. We demonstrated that separating the physical and the numerical attributes in space leaves the effect unchanged. We then applied the spatially separated version to two-digit numerals and showed the effect to be comparable to that obtained with single numerals. We showed further that the effect is sensitive to the relative salience of the numeric and physical dimensions, to the extent that when the latter is the more salient dimension, a reverse effect obtains by which physical size interferes with number comparison. The results can be explained by a relative speed of processing account, but they are also compatible with an attention account that does not appeal to the notion of automaticity.
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.
Bargh, J. A. (1992). The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects.American Journal of Psychology,105, 181–199.
Besner, D., &Coltheart, M. (1979). Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English.Neuropsychologia,17, 467–472.
Brysbaert, M. (1995). Arabic number reading: On the nature of numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 434–452.
Damian, M. F. (2004). Asymmetries in the processing of Arabic digits and number words.Memory & Cognition,32, 164–171.
Dehaene, S. (1997).The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S., &Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 314–326.
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.
Dishon-Berkovits, M., &Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be.Memory & Cognition,28, 1437–1449.
Fias, W., Lammertyn, J., Reynvoet, B., Dupont, P., &Orban, G. A. (2003). Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,15, 47–56.
Fias, W., Reynvoet, B., &Brysbaert, M. (2001). Are Arabic numerals processed as pictures in a Stroop interference task?Psychological Research,65, 242–249.
Foltz, G. S., Poltrock, S. E., &Potts, G. R. (1984). Mental comparison of size and magnitude: Size congruity effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 442–453.
Garner, W. R. (1962).Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glaser, W. R., &Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 13–42.
Göbel, S., Walsh, V., &Rushworth, M. F. S. (2001a). The mental number line and the human angular gyrus.NeuroImage,14, 1278–1289.
Göbel, S., Walsh, V., &Rushworth, M. F. S. (2001b). rTMS disrupts the representation of small numbers in supramarginal gyrus.Neuro-Image,3, 409.
Hatta, T. (1977). Recognition of Japanese kanji in the left and right visual field.Neuropsychologia,15, 685–688.
Henik, A., &Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks.Memory & Cognition,10, 389–395.
Hinrichs, J. V., Yurko, D. S., &Hu, J. M. (1981). Two-digit number comparison: Use of place information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 890–901.
Ischebeck, A. (2003). Differences between digit naming and number word reading in a flanker task.Memory & Cognition,31, 529–537.
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., &Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 638–644.
Kahneman, D., &Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 497–509.
Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.Cognitive Psychology,12, 523–553.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.
MacLeod, C. M., &Hodder, S. L. (1998). Presenting two incongruent color words on a single trial does not alter Stroop interference.Memory & Cognition,26 212–219.
Melara, R. D., &Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects.Psychological Review,110, 422–471.
Moyer, R. S., &Landauer, T. K. (1967). The time required for judgments of numerical inequality.Nature,215, 1519–1520.
Nuerk, H.-C., Weger, U., &Willmes, K. (2001). Decade breaks in the mental number line? Putting the tens and units back in different bins.Cognition,82, B25-B33.
Pansky, A., &Algom, D. (1999). Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgments 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.
Reynvoet, B., &Brysbaert, M. (1999). Single-digit and two-digit Arabic numerals address the same semantic number line.Cognition,72, 191–201.
Roelofs, A. (2006). Functional architecture of naming dice, digits, and number words.Language & Cognitive Processes,21, 78–111.
Schwarz, W., &Heinze, H. J. (1998). On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: A behavioral and eventrelated potential study.Neuropsychologia,36, 1167–1179.
Schwarz, W., &Ischebeck, A. (2003). On the relative speed account of number-size interference in comparative judgments of numerals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 507–522.
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.),Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). New York: Wiley.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
Takahashi, A., &Green, D. (1983). Numerical judgments with Kanji and Kana.Neuropsychologia,21, 259–263.
Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., &Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 166–179.
Tzelgov, J., Yehene, V., Kotler, L., &Alon, A. (2000). Automatic comparisons of artificial digits never compared: Learning linear ordering relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 103–120.
Vaid, J. (1985). Numerical size comparisons in a phonologically transparent script.Perception & Psychophysics,37, 592–595.
Vaid, J., &Corina, D. (1989). Visual field asymmetries in numerical size comparisons of digits, words, and signs.Brain & Language,36, 117–126.
Verguts, T., Fias, W., &Stevens, M. [A.] (2005). A model of exact small-number representation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 66–80.
Whalen, J., & Morelli, F. (2002, November).How the brain represents numerical quantity. Poster presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Kansas City, MO.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fitousi, D., Algom, D. Size congruity effects with two-digit numbers: Expanding the number line?. Memory & Cognition 34, 445–457 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193421
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193421