Abstract
In four experiments, the problem-size effect was investigated, using an alphabet-arithmetic task in which subjects verified such problems as A + 2 = C. Problem size was manipulated by varying the magnitude of the digit addend (e.g., A + 2, A + 3, and A + 4). The frequency and similarity of problems was also manipulated to determine the contribution of strength and interference, respectively. Experiment 1 manipulated frequency at low levels of practice and found that strength could account for the problem-size effect. Experiment 2 manipulated frequency at higher levels of practice, and found that strength alone could not account for the problem-size effect at asymptote. Experiment 3 manipulated frequency and similarity and found a substantial problem-size effect at asymptote, suggesting that both strength and interference contribute to the problem-size effect. Experiment 4 manipulated similarity, keeping frequency constant, and found no problem-size effect at asymptote, suggesting that interference alone is not responsible for the problem-size effect. The results are related to findings with number arithmetic.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashcraft, M. H. (1992). Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory.Cognition,44, 75–106.
Ashcraft, M. H., &Battaglia, J. (1978). Cognitive arithmetic: Evidence for retrieval and decision processes in mental addition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 527–538.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Christy, K. S. (in press). The frequency of arithmetic facts in elementary texts: Addition and multiplication in grades 1–6. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
Benford, F. (1938). The law of anomalous numbers.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,78, 551–572.
Campbell, J. I. D. (1987). Network interference and mental multiplication.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 109–123.
Campbell, J. I. D. (1990). Retrieval inhibition and interference in cognitive arithmetic.Canadian Journal of Psychology,44, 445–464.
Campbell, J. I. D. (1991). Conditions of error priming in number-fact retrieval.Memory & Cognition,19, 197–209.
Campbell, J. I. D., &Clark, J. M. (1989). Time course of error-priming in number fact retrieval: Evidence for excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 204–214.
Campbell, J. I. D., &Graham, D. J. (1985). Mental multiplication skill: structure, process, and acquisition.Canadian Journal of Psychology,39, 338–366.
Campbell, J. I. D., &Oliphant, M. (1992). Representation and retrieval of arithmetic facts: A network-interference model and simulation. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.),The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 331–364). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Clapp, F. L. (1924).The number combinations: Their relative difficulty and the frequency of their appearance in textbooks (Bulletin No. 2). University of Wisconsin Bureau of Educational Research.
Clark, J. M. (1992). Inhibitory mechanisms in normal and dysfunctional number processing. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.),The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 411–456). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Compton, B. J., &Logan, G. D. (1991). The transition from algorithm to retrieval in memory-based theories of automaticity.Memory & Cognition,19, 151–158.
Geary, D. C., Widaman, K. F., &Little, T. D. (1986). Cognitive addition and multiplication: Evidence for a single memory network.Memory & Cognition,14, 478–487.
Groen, G. J., &Parkman, J. M. (1972). A chronometric analysis of simple addition.Psychological Review,79, 329–343.
Groen, G. J., &Resnick, L. B. (1977). Can preschool children invent addition algorithms?Journal of Educational Psychology,69, 645–652.
Hamann, M. S., &Ashcraft, M. H. (1986). Textbook presentations of the basic addition facts.Cognition & Instruction,3, 173–192.
Logan, G. D., &Klapp, S. T. (1991). Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 179–195.
McCloskey, M., &Cohen, N. J. (1989). Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 24, pp. 109–165). San Diego: Academic Press.
McCloskey, M., &Lindemann, A. M. (1992). Mathnet: Preliminary results from a distributed model of arithmetic fact retrieval. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.),The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 365–409). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Siegler, R. S. (1986). Unities across domains in children’s strategy choices. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.),Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Siegler, R. S. (1987). The perils of averaging data over strategies: An example from children’s addition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 250–264.
Siegler, R. S. (1988). Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 258–275.
Siegler, R. S., &Shrager, J. (1984). A model of strategy choice. In C. Sophian (Ed.),Origins of cognitive skills. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Svenson, O. (1985). Memory retrieval of answers of simple additions as reflected in response latencies.Acta Psychologica,59, 285–304.
Thomas, H. B. G. (1963). Communication theory and the constellation hypothesis of calculation.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,15, 173–191.
Thorndike, E. L. (1922).The psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan.
Winkelman, J. H., &Schmidt, J. (1974). Associative confusions in mental arithmetic.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 734–736.
Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979).Development of counting and remembering as strategies for performing simple arithmetic in elementary school children. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto.
Zbrodoff, N. J., &Logan, G. D. (1986). On the autonomy of mental processes: A case study of arithmetic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 118–130.
Zbrodoff, N. J., &Logan, G. D. (1990). On the relation between production and verification tasks in the psychology of simple arithmetic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 83–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
These data were reported at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in St. Louis, November 1994.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zbrodoff, N.J. Why is 9+7 harder than 2+3? Strength and interference as explanations of the problem-size effect. Mem Cogn 23, 689–700 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200922
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200922