Search for: All records

Abstract A left digit effect has been broadly observed across judgment and decision‐making contexts ranging from product evaluation to medical treatment decisions to number line estimation. For example, $3.00 is judged to be a much greater cost than $2.99, and “801” is estimated strikingly too far to the right of “798” on a number line. Although the consequences of the effects for judgment and decision behavior have been documented, the sources of the effects are not well established. The goal of the current work is to extend investigations of the left digit effect to a new complex judgment activity and to assess whether the magnitude of the effect at the individual level can be predicted from performance on a simpler number skills task on which the left digit effect has also recently been observed. In three experiments (N = 434), adults completed a judgment task in which they rated the strength of hypothetical applicants for college admission and a self‐paced number line estimation task. In all experiments, a small or medium left digit effect was found in the college admissions task, and a large effect was found in number line estimation. Individual‐level variation was observed, but there was no relationship between the magnitudes of the effects in the two tasks. These findings provide evidence of a left digit effect in a novel multiattribute judgment task but offer no evidence that such performance can be predicted from a simple number skills task such as number line estimation. 

Number line estimation tasks are frequently used to learn about numerical thinking, learning, and development. These tasks are often interpreted as though estimates are determined by overall magnitudes of target numerals, rather than specific instantiating digits. Yet estimates are strongly biased by leftmost digits. For example, numbers like “698” are placed too far to the left of numbers like “701” on a 0–1,000 line. This “left digit effect” or “left digit bias” has been investigated little in children, and only on electronic tasks. Here, we ask whether left digit bias appears in paper-and-pencil estimates, and whether it differs for paper-based versus computer-based tasks. In Study 1, 5- to 8-year-old children completed a 0–100 number line task on paper. In Study 2, 7- to 11-year-olds completed a 0–1,000 paper task. In Study 3, adults completed tasks on paper in both ranges. Large left digit effects were observed for children aged 8 years or older and adults, but we did not find evidence for left digit bias in younger children. Study 4 compared paper and computer tasks for adults and children aged 9–12 years. Strong left digit bias was observed in all conditions, with a larger effect for the paper-based task in children. Large left digit effects in number line estimation emerge regardless of task format, with a developmental trajectory broadly consistent with other studies. For children in the age range that reliably exhibits left digit bias (but not adults), paper-and-pencil number line estimation tasks elicit even greater bias than computer-based tasks. 

A robust left digit effect arises in number line estimation, whereby the leftmost digits of numerals have an undue influence on placements such that, for example, numbers like 298 are placed far to the left of numbers like 302. Past efforts to motivate more accurate performance using trial-by-trial and summary feedback have not led to a reduction in the left digit effect. In two experiments, we asked whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate the left digit effect in number line estimation through an instructional intervention in which one is explicitly taught about the left digit effect. In Experiment 1 ( N = 134), participants completed two blocks (60 trials per block) of a self-paced 0–1,000 number line estimation task and were randomly assigned to either an instruction or a control condition. In Experiment 2 ( N = 143), the procedure was enhanced with a learning check, and with additional measures to assess changes in behaviour as a result of instruction. In both experiments, a left digit effect was found in each block of each condition. Although there was evidence that instruction changed behaviour, these changes did not result in any reduction in the left digit effect relative to the control condition. These findings demonstrate that the left digit effect cannot be easily reduced by making people aware of it. 

Recent work reveals a left digit effect in number line estimation such that adults' and children's estimates for three-digit numbers with different hundreds-place digits but nearly identical magnitudes are systematically different (e.g., 398 is placed too far to the left of 401 on a 0-1000 line, despite their almost indistinguishable magnitudes; Lai et al., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12657). In two preregistered studies (N = 218), we investigate the scope and malleability of the left digit effect. Experiment 1 used a typical forward-oriented 0-1000 number line estimation task and an atypical reverse-oriented 1000-0 number line estimation task. Experiment 2 used the same forward-oriented typical 0-1000 number line estimation task from Experiment 1, but with trial-by-trial corrective feedback. We observed a large left digit effect, regardless of the orientation of the line in Experiment 1 or the presence of corrective feedback in Experiment 2. Further, analyses using combined data showed that the pattern was present across most stimuli and participants. These findings demonstrate a left digit effect that is robust and widely observed, and that cannot be easily corrected with simple feedback. We discuss the implications of the findings for understanding sources of the effect and efforts to reduce it.