Complex fraction comparisons and the natural number bias: The role of benchmarks

Andreas Obersteiner, Martha Wagner Alibali, Vijay Marupudi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

People are often better at comparing fractions when the larger fraction has the larger rather than the smaller natural number components. However, there is conflicting evidence about whether this “natural number bias” occurs for complex fraction comparisons (e.g., 23/52 vs. 11/19). It is also unclear whether using benchmarks such as 1/2 or 1/4 enhances performance and reduces the bias (e.g., 11/19 > 1/2 and 23/52 < 1/2, hence 11/19 > 23/52). We asked 107 adults to solve complex fraction comparisons that did or did not afford using benchmarks, and we assessed response time and accuracy. We found a reverse bias (i.e., smaller components—larger fraction) that was greater among participants with lower mathematics experience. Fractions' proximity to 0 or 1 facilitated performance and decreased bias; effects of other benchmarks were nonsignificant. These results challenge the generality of the natural number bias in fraction comparison and highlight its variability.

Original languageEnglish
Article number101307
JournalLearning and Instruction
Volume67
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Dual processes
  • Fraction magnitudes
  • Natural number bias
  • Strategy use

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Complex fraction comparisons and the natural number bias: The role of benchmarks'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this