How to estimate how well people estimate: Evaluating measures of individual differences in the approximate number system

Abstract

At a glance, one can tell that there are more individual fruits in a pile of 100 apples than in a pile of 20 watermelons, even though the watermelons take up more space. People's ability to distinguish between such nonsymbolic numerical magnitudes without counting is derived from the approximate number system (ANS). Individual differences in this ability (ANS acuity) are emerging as an important predictor in research areas ranging from children's understanding of arithmetic to adults' use of numbers in judgment and decision making. However, ANS acuity must be assessed through proxy tasks that might not show consistent relationships with this ability. Furthermore, practical limitations often confine researchers to using abbreviated measures of this ability, whose reliability is questionable. Here, we developed and tested several novel ANS acuity measures: a nonsymbolic discrimination task designed to account for participants' lapses in attention; three estimation tasks, including one task in which participants estimated the number of dots in a briefly presented set, one in which they estimated the ratio between two sets of dots, and one in which they indicated the correct position of a set of dots on a "number-line" anchored by two sets of dots, as well as a similar number-line task using symbolic numbers. The results indicated that the discrimination task designed to account for lapses in participants' attention holds promise as a reliable measure of ANS acuity, considered in terms of both internal and test-retest reliability. We urge researchers to use acuity measures whose reliability has been demonstrated.Keywords Numeracy . Individual differences . Approximate number system . Nonverbal counting . Estimation Numeracy and individual differencesA growing body of literature has demonstrated that individual differences in numeric ability predict a diverse range of life outcomes. People who are better at math achieve higher educational attainment, better health, and greater economic suc-

The influence of number line estimation precision and numeracy on risky financial decision making

“…Numeracy was significantly correlated with EV sensitivity but a follow‐up test of partial correlation resulted in a reduction of correlation between the numeracy score and EV sensitivities. This result somewhat deviates from those of Chesney, Bjalkebring, and Peters () or Peters and Bjalkebring () (however, these studies did not control for the influence of confounding covariates). The difference between the result of previous studies and ours is likely due to high correlation between the numeracy score and covariates.…”

Right‐wing adherence and objective numeracy as predictors of minority group size perceptions and size threat reactions

“…To assess objective numeracy, an 8-item scale from Chesney, Bjalkebring, and Peters (2015) was used. To assess objective numeracy, an 8-item scale from Chesney, Bjalkebring, and Peters (2015) was used.…”

“…Objective numeracy. To assess objective numeracy, an 8-item scale from Chesney, Bjalkebring, and Peters (2015) was used. Participants responded to items such as "In the ACME PUBLISHING SWEEPSTAKES, the chance of winning a car is 1 in 1,000.…”

Ratio effect slope can sometimes be an appropriate metric of the approximate number system sensitivity

“…First, there could be Weber fraction ranges in some groups where the relation of the ratio effect slope and the ANS sensitivity is close to linear, or at least monotonic. Former studies suggest that the mean of the Weber fraction can be estimated to be somewhere between 0.12 and 0.22 in adults: 0.22 and 0.2 (Study 1 and 2 in Chesney, Bjalkebring, & Peters, 2015), 0.108 , 0.15 (Piazza et al, 2010), 0.12 and 0.17 (control and Munduruku participants in Pica, Lemer, Izard, & Dehaene, 2004), and the standard deviation of the sample was 0.06 and 0.07 (Study 1 and 2 in Chesney et al, 2015). (Note that there are only a few standard deviations of the samples available in the literature, because this descriptive is usually not relevant in those works, therefore it is not reported.)…”