Arbitrary numbers counter fair decisions: Trails of markedness in card distribution

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue MAR, 2015, Pages

  Schroeder, Philipp A ^a   Pfister, Roland ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

And justice for all; Embodied cognition; Free choice; Linguistic markedness; MARC effect; Numerical cognition; SNARC effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926633759     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00240     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., and Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia 36, 731-735. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00002-5.
2. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 637-660. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99532147.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 617-645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2014). Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package version 1.1-7. Available at: http//CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
5. Berch, D. B., Foley, E. J., Hill, R. J., and Ryan, P. M. (1999). Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 74, 286-308. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2518.
6. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6, 242-261. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8.
7. Bull, R., Cleland, A. A., and Mitchell, T. (2013). Sex differences in the spatial representation of number. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 181-192. doi: 10.1037/a0028387.
8. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right-and left-handers. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138, 351-367. doi: 10.1037/a0015854.
9. Chang, H.-S., and Gibson, J. M. (2011). The odd-even effect in Sudoku puzzles: effects of working memory, aging, and experience. Am. J. Psychol. 124, 313-324. doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.3.0313.
10. Cho, Y. S., and Proctor, R. W. (2007). When is an odd number not odd? Influence of task rule on the MARC effect for numeric classification. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33, 832-842. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.832.
11. Choi, J., and Myer, D. W. (2012). The effect of product positioning in a comparison table on consumers' evaluation of a sponsor. Mark. Lett. 23, 367-380. doi: 10.1007/s11002-012-9162-9.
12. Daar, M., and Pratt, J. (2008). Digits affect actions: the SNARC effect and response selection. Cortex 44, 400-405. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.12.003.
13. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., and Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 122, 371-396. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371.
14. de la Fuente, J., Casasanto, D., Román, A., and Santiago, J. (2014). Can culture influence body-specific associations between space and valence? Cogn. Sci. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12177 [Epub ahead of print].
15. Deng, X., and Kahn, B. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The "location effect" on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. J. Mark. Res. 46, 1-48. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.6.725.
16. Dittrich, K., and Klauer, K. C. (2012). Does ignoring lead to worse evaluations? A new explanation of the stimulus devaluation effect. Cogn. Emot. 26, 193-208. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2011.570313.
17. Domahs, F., Moeller, K., Huber, S., Willmes, K., and Nuerk, H.-C. (2010). Embodied numerosity: implicit hand-based representations influence symbolic number processing across cultures. Cognition 116, 251-266. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.007.
18. Eerland, A., Guadalupe, T. M., and Zwaan, R. A. (2011). Leaning to the left makes the Eiffel Tower seem smaller: posture-modulated estimation. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1511-1514. doi: 10.1177/0956797611420731.
19. Elliot, A. J., and Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 95-120. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115035.
20. Fias, W., Brysbaert, M., Geypens, F., and D'Ydewalle, G. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: evidence from the SNARC effect. Math. Cogn. 2, 95-110. doi: 10.1080/135467996387552.
21. Fischer, M. H. (2012). A hierarchical view of grounded, embodied, and situated numerical cognition. Cogn. Process. 13(Suppl. 1), S161-S164. doi: 10.1007/s10339-012-0477-5.
22. Fischer, M. H. (2008). Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical associations. Cortex 44, 386-392. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.08.004.
23. Fischer, M. H. (2006). The future for SNARC could be stark. Cortex 42, 1066-1068. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70218-1.
24. Fischer, M. H., Mills, R. A., and Shaki, S. (2010). How to cook a SNARC: number placement in text rapidly changes spatial-numerical associations. Brain Cogn. 72, 333-336. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.010.
25. Furnham, A., and Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. J. Socio Econ. 40, 35-42. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008.
26. Gevers, W., Ratinckx, E., De Baene, W., and Fias, W. (2006). Further evidence that the SNARC effect is processed along a dual-route architecture: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Exp. Psychol. 53, 58-68. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.58.
27. Gevers, W., Santens, S., Dhooge, E., Chen, Q., Van den Bossche, L., Fias, W., et al. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 139, 180-190. doi: 10.1037/a0017688.
28. Göbel, S., Walsh, V., and Rushworth, M. F. (2001). The mental number line and the human angular gyrus. Neuroimage 14, 1278-1289. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0927.
29. Güntürkün, O. (2003). Human behaviour: adult persistence of head-turning asymmetry. Nature 421, 711. doi: 10.1038/421711a.
30. Halekoh, U., and Højsgaard, S. (2014). A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models-the R package pbkrtest. J. Stat. Softw. 59, 1-30.
31. Holmes, K. J., and Lourenco, S. F. (2011). Common spatial organization of number and emotional expression: a mental magnitude line. Brain Cogn. 77, 315-323. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.002.
32. Huber, S., Klein, E., Graf, M., Nuerk, H.-C., Moeller, K., and Willmes, K. (2014). Embodied markedness of parity? Examining handedness effects on parity judgments. Psychol. Res. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0626-9 [Epub ahead of print].
33. Jakobson, R. (1931). "The structure of the Russian verb," in Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies, eds L. Waugh and M. Halle (Berlin: Mouton), 1-14.
34. Keehner, M., and Fischer, M. H. (2012). Unusual bodies, uncommon behaviors: individual and group differences in embodied cognition in spatial tasks. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 12, 71-82. doi: 10.1080/13875868.2012.659303.
35. Klein, E., Suchan, J., Moeller, K., Karnath, H.-O., Knops, A., Wood, G., et al. (2014). Considering structural connectivity in the triple code model of numerical cognition: differential connectivity for magnitude processing and arithmetic facts. Brain Struct. Funct. doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0951-1 [Epub ahead of print].
36. Lehrer, A. (2008). Markedness and antonymy. J. Linguist. 21, 397. doi: 10.1017/S002222670001032X.
37. Liederman, J., and Kinsbourne, M. (1980). The mechanism of neonatal rightward turning bias: a sensory or motor asymmetry? Infant Behav. Dev. 3, 223-238. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(80)80028-2.
38. Loetscher, T., Bockisch, C. J., Nicholls, M. E. R., and Brugger, P. (2010). Eye position predicts what number you have in mind. Curr. Biol. 20, R264-R265. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.015.
39. Loetscher, T., Schwarz, U., Schubiger, M., and Brugger, P. (2008). Head turns bias the brain's internal random generator. Curr. Biol. 18, R60-R62. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.015.
40. Mussweiler, T., and Englich, B. (2003). Adapting to the Euro: evidence from bias reduction. J. Econ. Psychol. 24, 285-292. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00015-1.
41. Nisbett, R., and Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84, 231-259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
42. Northcraft, G. B., and Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39, 84-97. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X.
43. Nuerk, H.-C., Iversen, W., and Willmes, K. (2004). Notational modulation of the SNARC and the MARC (linguistic markedness of response codes) effect. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 57, 835-863. doi: 10.1080/02724980343000512.
44. Nuerk, H.-C., Moeller, K., Klein, E., Willmes, K., and Fischer, M. H. (2011). Extending the mental number line: a review of multi-digit number processing. Z. Psychol. 219, 3-22. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000041.
45. Nuerk, H.-C., Moeller, K., and Willmes, K. (2014). "Multi-digit number processing," in Oxford Handbook of Mathematical Cognition, eds R. Cohen Kadosh and A. Dowker (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1-20.
46. Nuerk, H.-C., and Willmes, K. (2005). On the magnitude representations of two-digit numbers. Psychol. Sci. 47, 52-72.
47. Nuerk, H.-C., Wood, G., and Willmes, K. (2005). The universal SNARC effect: the association between number magnitude and space is amodal. Exp. Psychol. 52, 187-194. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.3.187.
48. Ocklenburg, S., and Güntürkün, O. (2009). Head-turning asymmetries during kissing and their association with lateral preference. Laterality 14, 79-85. doi: 10.1080/13576500802243689.
49. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Patro, K., Nuerk, H.-C., Cress, U., and Haman, M. (2014). How number-space relationships are assessed before formal schooling: a taxonomy proposal. Front. Psychol. 5:419. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00419.
51. Pfister, R., and Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 9, 74-80.
52. Pfister, R., Schroeder, P. A., and Kunde, W. (2013). SNARC struggles: instant control over spatial-numerical associations. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39, 1953-1958. doi: 10.1037/a0032991.
53. Pinhas, M., and Tzelgov, J. (2012). Expanding on the mental number line: zero is perceived as the "smallest." J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 38, 1187-1205. doi: 10.1037/a0027390.
54. Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55. Price, J., and Wolfers, J. (2014). Right-oriented bias: a comment on roskes, sligte, shalvi, and de dreu (2011). Psychol. Sci. 25, 2109-2111. doi: 10.1177/0956797614536738.
56. Proctor, R. W., and Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: a general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychol. Bull. 132, 416-442. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416.
57. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 576-582. doi: 10.1038/nrn1706.
58. Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Shalvi, S., and De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Does approach motivation induce right-oriented bias? Reply to price and wolfers (2014). Psychol. Sci. 25, 2112-2115. doi: 10.1177/0956797614547919.
59. Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Shalvi, S., and De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011). The right side? Under time pressure, approach motivation leads to right-oriented bias. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1403-1407. doi: 10.1177/0956797611418677.
60. Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who Believes in a Just World? J. Soc. Issues 31, 65-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x.
61. Ruiz Fernández, S., Rahona, J. J., Hervás, G., Vázquez, C., and Ulrich, R. (2011). Number magnitude determines gaze direction: spatial-numerical association in a free-choice task. Cortex 47, 617-620. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.10.006.
62. Santiago, J., and Lakens, D. (2014). Can conceptual congruency effects between number, time, and space be accounted for by polarity correspondence? Acta Psychol. (Amst.) doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.016 [Epub ahead of print].
63. Shaki, S., and Fischer, M. H. (2014). Random walks on the mental number line. Exp. Brain Res. 232, 43-49. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3718-7.
64. Shaki, S., Fischer, M. H., and Petrusic, W. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16, 328-331. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.328.
65. Tanaka, K. (1999). Judgments of fairness by just world believers. J. Soc. Psychol. 139, 631-638. doi: 10.1080/00224549909598423.
66. Tschentscher, N., Hauk, O., Fischer, M. H., and Pulvermüller, F. (2012). You can count on the motor cortex: finger counting habits modulate motor cortex activation evoked by numbers. Neuroimage 59, 3139-3148. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.037.
67. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124-1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
68. Valenzuela, A., and Raghubir, P. (2009). Are top-bottom inferences conscious and left-right inferences automatic? implications for shelf space positions. HEC Paris INSEAD Fontainebleau. 19, 185-196.
69. Wood, G., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H.-C., and Fischer, R. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: a meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychol. Sci. Q. 50, 489-525.
70. Zimmer, K. E. (1964). Affixal negation in English and other languages: an investigation of restricted productivity. Word 20(2), Monograph No. 5.