Symbolic number ordering strategies and math anxiety

Familiar Sequences Are Processed Faster Than Unfamiliar Sequences, Even When They Do Not Match the Count-List

In order processing, consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3) are generally processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5) (also referred to as the reverse distance effect). A common explanation for this effect is that order processing operates via a memory-based associative mechanism whereby consecutive sequences are processed faster because they are more familiar and thus more easily retrieved from memory. Conflicting with this proposal, however, is the finding that this effect is often absent. A possible explanation for these absences is that familiarity may vary both within and across sequence types; therefore, not all consecutive sequences are necessarily more familiar than all nonconsecutive sequences. Accordingly, under this familiarity perspective, familiar sequences should always be processed faster than unfamiliar sequences, but consecutive sequences may not always be processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences. To test this hypothesis in an adult population, we used a comparative judgment approach to measure familiarity at the individual sequence level. Using this measure, we found that although not all participants showed a reverse distance effect, all participants displayed a familiarity effect. Notably, this familiarity effect appeared stronger than the reverse distance effect at both the group and individual level; thus, suggesting the reverse distance effect may be better conceptualized as a specific instance of a more general familiarity effect.

Concepts of order: Why is ordinality processed slower and less accurately for non-consecutive sequences?

Both adults and children are slower at judging the ordinality of non-consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5) than consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3). It has been suggested that the processing of non-consecutive sequences is slower because it conflicts with the intuition that only count-list sequences are correctly ordered. An alternative explanation, however, may be that people simply find it difficult to switch between consecutive and non-consecutive concepts of order during order judgement tasks. Therefore, in adult participants, we tested whether presenting consecutive and non-consecutive sequences separately would eliminate this switching demand and thus improve performance. In contrast with this prediction, however, we observed similar patterns of response times independent of whether sequences were presented separately or together (Experiment 1). Furthermore, this pattern of results remained even when we doubled the number of trials and made participants explicitly aware when consecutive and non-consecutive sequences were presented separately (Experiment 2). Overall, these results suggest slower response times for non-consecutive sequences do not result from a cognitive demand of switching between consecutive and non-consecutive concepts of order, at least not in adults.