ArticlePsychological research2025
Unravelling the small number bias: the role of pseudoneglect and frequency of use in random number generation.
Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ace in the hole: playing cards show the role of order and magnitude in the SNARC effect.Psychological research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When asked to produce random numbers individuals generate more small numbers than large ones, a phenomenon known as "Small Number Bias" (SNB; Loetscher & Brugger, 2007). This bias has been associated with a spatial preference known as "pseudoneglect," where attention is biased towards the left side of the mental number line during numerical processing (Loetscher & Brugger, 2009). Another potential explanation for SNB is the higher frequency of use of small compared to large numbers in daily life (Dehaene & Mehler, 1992). This study aims to determine which of these two explanations better accounts for SNB. Participants were asked to generate random numbers from 1 to 12 while viewing either a regular or an inverted clockface. On a regular clockface smaller numbers are on the right, whereas on an inverted clockface they are on the left. Both theories predict SNB for the inverted clockface. However, for the regular clockface, frequency of use would predict SNB, while pseudoneglect would predict a bias towards larger numbers. Results showed SNB in the inverted clockface condition, but no bias in the regular clockface condition. These findings suggest that SNB arises when pseudoneglect and frequency of use align but is absent when they conflict. Overall, the results indicate that both pseudoneglect and frequency of use contribute to SNB in some degrees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.