Abstract
Numbers play a major role in decisions about vital life issues. This study compared the relative advantage of analytical vs. intuitive numerical processing in numerical average evaluations, while varying information load, complexity of the task and the information presentation formats. Thinking manipulation was based on Dehaene’s [5] model, which postulates two pathways for the numerical processing. The complexity level of the task was manipulated by varying the number of items to be averaged. The information presentation format were simultaneous vs. sequential. When few numbers were presented, analytical evaluations were more accurate. When task complexity increased and a sequential presentation was used, intuitive evaluations were more accurate. The results challenge the common position that analytical thinking is always advantageous in numerical evaluations, suggesting instead that the relative efficiency of each thinking mode is mediated by task’s factors. The cognitive mechanisms that might underlie our results are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
