When the proportion of congruent trials in conflict tasks is manipulated (e.g., Stroop, Simon), the typical result is that the magnitude of the conflict effect increases as the proportion of congruent trials increases. The present experiment investigated the influence of Congruency Proportion in the context of the Size Congruity Paradigm. Congruency Proportion had a significant impact on the Numerical Judgement Task (judging which of two numbers is numerically larger), but not on the Physical Judgement Task (judging which of two numbers is printed in a larger font). These data support the inference that physical size information is processed before, and more fluently than, numerical size information. The implications of this asymmetry are discussed in terms of the relative role of semantic and physical size information in representations of magnitude, and the role they play in both of these tasks.

The Simon effect refers to the observation that subjects identify targets (e.g., colors) faster when the irrelevant spatial location of the target corresponds to the location of the response key. Theoretical accounts of the Simon effect typically explain performance in terms of automatic and controlled processes. Furthermore, the relative contributions of automatic and controlled processes are held to change as a function of the proportion of compatible to incompatible trials (compatibility proportion). Data are presented demonstrating that the reliability of the Simon effect, indexed by correlating its magnitude within subjects across blocks of trials, varied substantially as a function of the compatibility proportion. When the compatibility proportion was high, so was reliability. When the compatibility proportion was low, reliability was low as well. The results are discussed in terms of the relative reliability of automatic and controlled processes and the role of working memory and attentional control in goal maintenance.