Naturally Biased? In Search for Reaction Time Evidence for a Natural Number Bias in Adults.

Abstract A major source of errors in rational number tasks is the inappropriate application of natural number rules. We hypothesized that this is an instance of intuitive reasoning and thus can persist in adults, even when they respond correctly. This was tested by means of a reaction time method, relying on a dual process perspective that differentiates between intuitive and analytic reasoning. We measured fifty-eight educated adults’ accuracies and reaction times in a variety of rational number tasks. In half of the items (congruent), the correct response was compatible with natural number properties (thus intuitive reasoning led to a correct answer). In contrast, in the incongruent items, intuitive reasoning would lead to an incorrect answer. In comparing two numbers, there were hardly any natural-number-based errors but correct responses to incongruent items took longer. Regarding the effect of operations, more mistakes were made in incongruent items, and correct responses required longer reaction time. Incongruent items about density elicited considerably more errors than congruent items. These findings can be considered as evidence that the natural number bias is an instance of intuitive reasoning.

[1]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  The Linear Imperative: An Inventory and Conceptual Analysis of Students' Overuse of Linearity , 2008 .

[2]  Anna O. Graeber Brief Reports: Preservice Teachers' Misconceptions in Solving Verbal Problems in Multiplication and Division. , 1989 .

[3]  Marie-Pascale Noël,et al.  Rational numbers: Componential versus holistic representation of fractions in a magnitude comparison task , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  E. Fischbein,et al.  Intuition in science and mathematics , 1987 .

[6]  Wim Van Dooren,et al.  What Fills the Gap between Discrete and Dense? Greek and Flemish Students' Understanding of Density. , 2011 .

[7]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: time constraint and dual task considerations. , 2009, Experimental psychology.

[8]  E. Fischbein,et al.  THE ROLE OF IMPLICIT MODELS IN SOLVING VERBAL PROBLEMS IN MULTIPLICATION AND DIVISION , 1985 .

[9]  Arava Y. Kallai,et al.  A generalized fraction: an entity smaller than one on the mental number line. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  S. Carey Bootstrapping & the origin of concepts , 2004, Daedalus.

[11]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: a conceptual change approach , 2004 .

[12]  Ruth Stavy,et al.  How Students Mis/Understand Science and Mathematics: Intuitive Rules (Ways of Knowing in Science Series) , 2000 .

[13]  Yujing Ni,et al.  Teaching and Learning Fraction and Rational Numbers: The Origins and Implications of Whole Number Bias , 2005 .

[14]  Annette R. Baturo,et al.  Preservice Teachers' Knowledge of Difficulties in Decimal Numeration , 2001 .

[15]  Brian Butterworth,et al.  Why frequencies are natural , 2007 .

[16]  E. Corte,et al.  An empirical test of the impact of primitive intuitive models of operations on solving word problems with a multiplicative structure , 1996 .

[17]  Uri Leron,et al.  The Rationality Debate: Application of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education , 2006 .

[18]  Susan Carey,et al.  Never getting to zero: Elementary school students’ understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  The epigenesis of mathematical thinking , 2000 .

[20]  Jeremy Kilpatrick,et al.  Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics , 2013 .

[21]  Erno Lehtinen,et al.  Conceptual Change in Mathematics: Understanding the Real Numbers , 2002 .

[22]  Ruth Stavy,et al.  Intuitive Interference in Probabilistic Reasoning , 2006 .

[23]  I. Peled,et al.  Journey to the Past: Verifying and Modifying the Conceptual Sources of Decimal Fraction Knowledge , 2009 .

[24]  Rochel Gelman,et al.  Early understandings of numbers: paths or barriers to the construction of new understandings? , 1998 .

[25]  Marie-Pascale Noël,et al.  Comparing the magnitude of two fractions with common components: which representations are used by 10- and 12-year-olds? , 2010, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[26]  Michael Andres,et al.  Finger counting: The missing tool? , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[27]  B. Greer Helping Children Develop Mathematically , 2009, Human Development.

[28]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Remedying secondary school students' illusion of linearity: A teaching experiment , 2004 .

[29]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Rationality and reasoning , 1996 .

[30]  Erno Lehtinen,et al.  Number concept and conceptual change: towards a systemic model of the processes of change , 2004 .

[31]  M. Hannula,et al.  Levels of students' understanding on infinity , 2006 .

[32]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  The development of students’ understanding of the numerical value of fractions , 2004 .

[33]  Jacques Grégoire,et al.  Developmental changes in the comparison of decimal fractions , 2010 .

[34]  Peter Bryant,et al.  Rational Numbers and Intensive Quantities: Challenges and Insights to Pupils´ Implicit Knowledge , 2008 .

[35]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  How Many Decimals Are There Between Two Fractions? Aspects of Secondary School Students’ Understanding of Rational Numbers and Their Notation , 2010 .

[36]  Vicki Steinle,et al.  Refining the Classification of Students' Interpretations of Decimal Notation. , 1998 .

[37]  Ruth Stavy,et al.  Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: a reaction time study , 2006 .

[38]  J. Moss Developing Children's Understanding of the Rational Numbers: A New Model and an Experimental Curriculum , 1999 .

[39]  Ruth Stavy,et al.  Development of intuitive rules: Evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children’s intuitive reasoning , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  L. Verschaffel,et al.  Dual Processes in the Psychology of Mathematics Education and Cognitive Psychology , 2009, Human Development.

[41]  S. Epstein Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[42]  Joanne Mulligan,et al.  Young Children ’ s Intuitive Models of Multiplication and Division , 2001 .

[43]  W. Neys,et al.  Feeling we’re biased: Autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict , 2010, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[44]  D. Kahneman A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[45]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  The mental representation of numerical fractions: real or integer? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  M. Osman An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[48]  E. De Corte,et al.  Influence of number size, problem structure, and response mode on children's solutions of multiplication word problems , 1988 .

[49]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Influence of the semantic structure of word problems on second graders' eye movements. , 1990 .

[50]  B. Greer The growth of mathematics through conceptual restructuring , 2004 .

[51]  L. Resnick,et al.  Conceptual Bases of Arithmetic Errors: The Case of Decimal Fractions. , 1989 .

[52]  Leslie P. Steffe,et al.  Children's Fractional Knowledge , 2009 .

[53]  G. Harel,et al.  Intermediate teachers’ knowledge of rational number concepts , 1991 .

[54]  Uri Leron,et al.  Intuitive vs analytical thinking: four perspectives , 2009, The Best Writing on Mathematics 2010.