Spatialization in working memory and its relation to math anxiety

Don't SNARC me now! Intraindividual variability of cognitive phenomena - Insights from the Ironman paradigm

Two implicit generalizations are often made from group-level studies in cognitive experimental psychology and their common statistical analysis in the general linear model: (1) Group-level phenomena are assumed to be present in every participant with variations between participants being often treated as random error in data analyses; (2) phenomena are assumed to be stable over time. In this preregistered study, we investigated the validity of these generalizations in the commonly used parity judgment task. In the proposed Ironman paradigm, the intraindividual presence and stability of three popular numerical cognition effects were tested in 10 participants on 30 days: the SNARC (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes, i.e., faster left-/right-sided responses to small/large magnitude numbers, respectively; Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993), MARC (Linguistic Markedness of Response Codes; i.e., faster left-/right-sided responses to odd/even numbers, respectively; Nuerk, Iversen, & Willmes, 2004), and Odd (i.e., faster responses to even numbers; Hines, 1990) effects. We replicated the group-level effects; however, they were reliably present in only four to five (SNARC), six (MARC) or five (Odd) of 10 participants. Fluctuations seemed unsystematic, although the SNARC effect decreased over time along with reaction times. No correlation between the SNARC and MARC effects and sleep duration, tiredness, daytime, and consumption of stimulants were detected in most participants. These results challenge the frequent generalizations from group-level phenomena to individual participants and from single sessions to typical behavior. The innovative Ironman paradigm combined with bootstrap analyses permits unique insights into the intraindividual presence and stability of cognitive phenomena.

Mathematics anxiety-where are we and where shall we go?

In this paper, we discuss several largely undisputed claims about mathematics anxiety (MA) and propose where MA research should focus, including theoretical clarifications on what MA is and what constitutes its opposite pole; discussion of construct validity, specifically relations between self‐descriptive, neurophysiological, and cognitive measures; exploration of the discrepancy between state and trait MA and theoretical and practical consequences; discussion of the prevalence of MA and the need for establishing external criteria for estimating prevalence and a proposal for such criteria; exploration of the effects of MA in different groups, such as highly anxious and high math–performing individuals; classroom and policy applications of MA knowledge; the effects of MA outside educational settings; and the consequences of MA on mental health and well‐being.