ArticlePsychological research2024
Anchoring bias in mental arithmetic.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental arithmetic is widely studied, both with symbolic digits and with non-symbolic dot patterns that require operand estimation. Several studies reported surprising biases in adults' performance with both formats while their direction (over/underestimation in addition/subtraction) remains controversial (operational momentum effect or OM; Prado & Knops, Prado and Knops, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, in Press., 2024). Theoretical accounts of OM make opposing predictions, thus enabling a decisive test: Using symbolic stimuli and responses, we enabled accurate operand encoding and result reporting, thus leaving mental calculation as only source of bias. Importantly, we manipulated operand order through calculation instructions (e.g., "29 + 19" vs. "add 19 to 29") to assess the crucial role of first operand size as cognitive anchor. With both auditory (Experiment 1, N = 30) and visual presentation (Experiment 2, N = 30), we observed reverse OM, i.e., overestimations in subtraction and underestimations in addition. Importantly, this instance of operation-based anchoring was independent of a second anchoring effect related to operand order: A large operand is a stronger anchor when mentioned first. Our discovery of both operation-based and order-based anchoring extends the well-known anchoring effect into mental arithmetic and eliminates several competing theories about the origin of OM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39601919What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.