ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2026
Systematic variation in proportion judgments: Spatial features impact adults' strategies and decisions.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2026. 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
Abstract
Proportional information is important for a range of everyday actions, from infants' and toddler's probabilistic inferences to adults' medical and financial decisions. Unfortunately, children and adults frequently make systematic errors in some proportional reasoning contexts. For example, people tend to focus more on the numerators, rather than the proportional relations, when proportions are discrete (i.e., with enumerable units) or when the subcomponents are spatially separated. Importantly, it is not that people cannot reason proportionally, as they do not make these same errors with continuous proportions presented as part of a single coherent whole. Although format-dependent variation has been shown across many studies with both children and adults, no work has systematically manipulated multiple aspects of visual, nonsymbolic proportional stimuli simultaneously to better understand which spatial factors impact proportional reasoning, and how. Here, we manipulate proportional stimuli in three ways: the availability of enumerable units (i.e., discreteness), predictability of the proportional information, and spatial separateness of the proportion subcomponents. We also formalize competing strategy explanations using mathematical models to infer people's strategies. Overall, we find that discreteness, predictability, and spatial separateness (as operationalized here) significantly impact adults' performance and strategies. Furthermore, all features interact with each other, and qualitative patterns suggest that spatial separateness and predictability may be particularly important, despite being less well-studied. By systematically varying the spatial features of proportions, we provide insight into the mechanisms that underlie proportional reasoning and highlight important interactions between spatial, numerical, and relational information. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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.